Atlas Forum

Forum Community => Forum Community => Topic started by: Napoleon on April 05, 2012, 05:44:10 pm



Title: The Good Post Gallery
Post by: Napoleon on April 05, 2012, 05:44:10 pm
To justify having the less positive post dumps, we ought to have one where we can show off solid, well reasoned posts that are worth having everyone read. I will start us off with a thoughtful post from a hot topic. Informative posts that forumites shouldn't miss go here.

 
One thing I find somewhat frustrating about Eastern Orthodoxy is that it does not fall into some of the same stupid 'natural law' traps as Catholic theology, yet retains many of the same conclusions on other, often oddly fideistic, bases; whereas there are groups like the Old Catholics and some of the Malabar churches that come to a different stance on the basis of much the same general theological practice as Rome. This to me indicates that these debates are cultural because there doesn't seem to be a whole hell of a lot of correlation between general attitude towards or way of doing theology and specific beliefs developed on a lot of these subjects.


(It is worth noting that dissent appears to exist in Orthodoxy, at somewhat higher levels than in Catholicism and carrying with it rather less danger of being sh**tcanned and reassigned to Partenia, but there's still not all that much of it.)

The method that mainline Protestants tend to practice in the tradition of Richard Hooker and John Wesley is that we as Christians believe most of what we believe because tradition tells us that scripture says to believe it. If experience or reason contradict what tradition tells us scripture says, then it's time to modify or reject parts of that tradition and approach scripture independently again, taking the experience and reason into account, to start a new tradition. I'm sure we can all think of examples where this process failed and the traditional interpretation was reaffirmed, and I'm sure we can also all think of examples where it succeeded and the received interpretation changed; or where it only dubiously failed or succeeded and resulted in ideological division within the Body of the Church.



Title: Re: The Good Post Gallery
Post by: Trounce-'em Theresa on April 05, 2012, 05:57:59 pm
No. If there's any bias at all, it's a pro-corporate elitist bisas, as seen with the lack of coverage of issues such as socio-economic inequality and the education crisis in this country, and the "liberal" New York Times's fascination of the issue of whether or not a few wealthy, elite women could play in a golf tournament.
If they weren't liberal, they wouldn't care about this sort of symbolic gender equality.

Which could be material pitched for a targeted audience already reading the New York Times. I am under the impression that (a.) folks with high incomes are generally more liberal on normative than economic issues, and (b.) journalists themselves tend to lean more to the left and are oftentimes cut a lot of slack provided they do not run any stories that seriously undercut the company's goals. Most major media outlets in the States are businesses first and foremost.


Title: Re: The Good Post Gallery
Post by: Yelnoc on April 05, 2012, 06:16:16 pm
Alabama seems on pace to lose a house seat in the next decade or two.

Yeah, I think its barely holding onto 7 districts. The upper part of the state around Huntsville is starting to grow pretty decently though.

Really?

I find that kind of surprising as I thought that the growth and regentrification seen in other Southern states like VA, NC, SC, and GA was starting to go into full force effect in Alabama?

Virginia has the benefit of DC-oriented companies doing business there because of the favorable tax/regulatory environment relative to DC and Maryland.

North Carolina has the Research Triangle, an indigenous banking industry (Wachovia, etc) that benefited from the growth of the financial sector from the 1980s to the present, an indigenous airline industry that has benefited from various mergers (Piedmont Airlines growing into US Airways), and excellent universities (UNC, Duke, Wake Forest).

South Carolina has coastal areas excellent for tourism and retirees and growth of Charlotte suburbs on their side of the state line.

Georgia has Atlanta and all that Atlanta entails. They were smart enough in the '70s to put all their "history/heritage/tradition" foolishness behind them after they realized no one invests in a state perceived to be racist and backwards.

Alabama doesn't have any major native industries, its public universities are nothing to write home about, tourism is confined to the Gulf Shores area where the beaches give you a great view of a bunch of offshore oil platforms in murky water, and their recent "Let's get rid of all the Mex'kins" legislation has only reinforced every negative perception the rest of the country has about them. The only good thing that ever came out of Alabama was the band Alabama. 


Title: Re: The Good Post Gallery
Post by: Saturday's Cab Ride Home on April 05, 2012, 09:15:04 pm
This is an oldie, but it deserves recognition as the best advice anyone has ever given anyone else ever on the forum:

No, no, no.  If you are a poor, and you have a job at the Electric Company, you stay there, and say 'yes sir' and 'no sir, and just batten down the hatches and wait.  It will all be over soon enough.  No need to rush it by getting conned up the a**s by some Kiwi b******s and ending up living under a bridge.

Seriously, I know poors who work at the Power Company (true they're from the previous unionized generations so they made $70,000/year, but still), and they survived.  Every one of them - and they will get to die in hospitals with medical treatments.  Yes, Public Utilities are not government jobs, but they're the next best thing.


Title: Re: The Good Post Gallery
Post by: Queen Mum Inks.LWC on April 05, 2012, 09:17:06 pm
Is this really necessary?  We're gonna end up having all these perma-threads taking up the first page.

(And before anybody goes all pissy on me, no I'm not going to lock it - I'm just asking if it's worth it.)

But we already have the comedy goldmine, post a picture, sulfur mine, deluge, signature thread.


Title: Re: The Good Post Gallery
Post by: RI on April 05, 2012, 09:18:29 pm
This better not become a "BRTD posts opebo quotes all day" thread.


Title: Re: The Good Post Gallery
Post by: Napoleon on April 05, 2012, 10:14:18 pm
Is this really necessary?  We're gonna end up having all these perma-threads taking up the first page.

(And before anybody goes all pissy on me, no I'm not going to lock it - I'm just asking if it's worth it.)

But we already have the comedy goldmine, post a picture, sulfur mine, deluge, signature thread.

I think a positive thread for informative posts might be more valuable than some of those you listed. I don't care to see pictures of anyone, for example.


Title: Re: The Good Post Gallery
Post by: opebo on April 05, 2012, 10:28:38 pm
This better not become a "BRTD posts opebo quotes all day" thread.

Anyway BRTD isn't the biggest fan of my posts, just of me.  If you calculate the person who has placed the most of my posts in the Comedic Goldmine Institute, I'll wager it is not BRTD.

So, go calculate that and we can continue this disscussion.


Title: Re: The Good Post Gallery
Post by: Torie on April 05, 2012, 10:58:05 pm
I think the "best of" thread is a splendid idea. Really. I suspect a majority of the Atlasian clan never run across the gems. This thread is needed. Sure, what is a "gem" is in the eye of the beholder, but hey, if someone thinks something is a diamond, which is really silicon/sircon zircomian/something involving a "z"  (what is that word for the ersatz diamond material - yes I know I have it wrong in a senior moment?), that is just some more good grist for the Atlasian mill, without much potential for collateral damage. And whomever started/came up with this idea (oh it is the guy whose screen name is that short little strutting pugalistic general who crowned himself emperor and gave the world a taste of what a nasty world war was really like until he finally had to be put down with poison), should get 10 negative death points, so that they have a free pass to be "bad" for 10 points, and yet still be thereafter  as much of an infraction virgin as I. :P

Yes!


Title: Re: The Good Post Gallery
Post by: Napoleon on April 05, 2012, 11:24:39 pm
Zirconium!


Title: Re: The Good Post Gallery
Post by: Queen Mum Inks.LWC on April 06, 2012, 12:11:11 am
Zirconium!

Cubic?


Title: Re: The Good Post Gallery
Post by: True Federalist on April 06, 2012, 12:25:48 am

Even better.  Tesseractic!


Title: Re: The Good Post Gallery
Post by: Napoleon on April 06, 2012, 12:34:30 am

Yes, but it is usually found present with silicon, and I was filling in the z-word for Torie. :)


Title: Re: The Good Post Gallery
Post by: Paul Kemp on April 06, 2012, 10:19:59 am
Only the bigots.  Just like the "obama is a muslim" guys.

Romney actually is a Mormon.  a key distinction.


Title: Re: The Good Post Gallery
Post by: Napoleon on April 06, 2012, 11:04:25 am
I understand your point (and agree with it), but who would own them if not corporations?  A hippy commune?

(and there are at least 2 TV news sources, the only 2 I ever watch, that are owned by governments....so I suppose that's an option as well)

Something like the BBC, if properly implemented, would be great, but I really don't trust the US government to manage something like that appropriately (on a related note, though, I do love some NPR).

The problem I have with the ownership of the news channels isn't that they're corporate entities, it's that they're all, in some form or another, just subsidiaries of various giant media/entertainment/electronics conglomerates. I wouldn't have an issue if they were managed by independent companies or whatever, like they used to be. CNN being the cable news component of Turner Broadcasting, for example, was completely fine. But when they're owned by a company that also owns amusement parks, sports teams, record labels, video game developers, internet service providers, movie studios, publishing companies, etc etc etc... things start carrying a bit of a burden of suspicion.


Title: Re: The Good Post Gallery
Post by: A Strange Reflection on April 08, 2012, 02:49:30 pm
The lack of outspoken support I've witnessed from Democrats in recent years for transitioning from a liberal to social democratic welfare regime, or at least overhauling the current arrangement, has contributed significantly to my slow drift away from the party. The basic needs of people to pursue healthy, fulfilling lives ought to be the birthright of all - not an entitlement reserved only for people fortunate enough to already possess an abundance of capital, or who can eek by on meager state benefits secured by abiding to a variety of time limits and prerequisites attached. It's a real shame.


Title: Re: The Good Post Gallery
Post by: A Strange Reflection on April 10, 2012, 11:20:11 am
This is one of the good posts in the "simple truth" category.

ass-backwards society needs a study to figure this out?  it's pure truism


Title: Re: The Good Post Gallery
Post by: shua on April 14, 2012, 12:49:55 am
Every day of my life. You give your meaning to these words that cut such a wide swath that resonate for you, and I will give mine, which do the same for me.


Title: Re: The Good Post Gallery
Post by: oreomilkshake on April 15, 2012, 01:04:42 pm
Nobody agrees with me that jacking up the tax rate on capital gains, is just about the worst place to raise revenue? (The Buffet Rule doesn't raise jack sh*t in revenue in any event; 6 billion a year is next to nothing, and that may assume a static rather than dynamic analysis, while portending an increase economic inefficiency.)  Cut the deductions first, and then  ...  well I am repeating myself. I mean I dump on Romney when he is wrong. Do you guys just think all of Obama's ideas are the cat's meow? And I am one Pub who agrees that we need to raise more revenue, and we still can't agree on much, including trying to raise revenue in a way that will minimize economic distortions, and increase economic inefficiency.

It is going to be a long campaign.  :(

You'll get no disagreement from me, but you keep presuming that the vast majority of Americans have any understanding of taxes or tax rates or economics, especially involving taxes they don't pay.  I also don't see why you think this site will be any different, being populated by liberal arts major types who couldn't balance a checkbook if their life depended on it.  I've lived too long with those types, and now I deal with lawyers, who are just the same, except that they can argue consistently.

One thing is almost certain - Buffett will end up making more money through this plan.  His involvement with government on anything is always towards this end.  I think I know how, but will not say that much at this time.


Title: Re: The Good Post Gallery
Post by: Napoleon on April 15, 2012, 02:26:44 pm
Any post ending in "I think I know how, but will not say that much at this time," belongs in the Deluge, not the Gallery.


Title: Re: The Good Post Gallery
Post by: oreomilkshake on April 15, 2012, 05:01:16 pm
Any post ending in "I think I know how, but will not say that much at this time," belongs in the Deluge, not the Gallery.

It is vintage spade.


Title: Re: The Good Post Gallery
Post by: A Strange Reflection on April 17, 2012, 11:00:51 am
This thread is not used as much as it should. Here's another excellent one.


Too bad Norway doesn't have the death penalty.

No, good that Norway, even when confronted by pure evil, is able to act rationally and not allow emotions to be abused in order to satisfy shortsighted, reactionary desires.


Title: Re: The Good Post Gallery
Post by: Trounce-'em Theresa on April 17, 2012, 12:10:11 pm
Every day of my life. You give your meaning to these words that cut such a wide swath that resonate for you, and I will give mine, which do the same for me.

??? I thought you were a rational type?  Or did I misunderstand you?

I find the words sufficiently vague and ambiguous, that I chose to give them a metaphorically meaning. Every morning that I wake up for yet one more to savor another day is like being "bathed in prayer." The fewer days you have left, the more precious each one becomes.  Is this parlance common currency among evangelicals or something?


Title: Re: The Good Post Gallery
Post by: Napoleon on April 20, 2012, 01:41:09 am
This is one of those great perspective questions. I comment here not on your situation with your professor, or on angus's assertion, but in general, because this is an assertion that libertarians make a lot, isn't it? I can see why a libertarian might ignore the entire weight of historical evidence to posit a relationship. The libertarian sees everything from the lens of the singular variable that libertarian-ism deems important. The orange and the pear may be different fruits, but they are both un-banana-like, and in that sense very similar to one another. They are similar in their un-banana-ism. After all, the stars in the constellations look close to each other.


Title: Re: The Good Post Gallery
Post by: Scott on April 20, 2012, 04:10:29 pm
Remembering that it's apparently not okay for people who abstain from smoking pot to make a point of their personal or moral objections, but is okay for people who do smoke pot to make fun of everyone who doesn't.


Title: Re: The Good Post Gallery
Post by: Trounce-'em Theresa on April 22, 2012, 02:48:46 pm
Here's a really seriously good post from wormyguy:

No, given that it was just a veiled effort to destroy Catholics schools.

And...that's a bad thing how?

Well, besides the fact that Catholic schools consistently produce better-achieving students, at a lower cost per pupil, than public schools, Catholic immigrant students faced extreme discrimination from both teachers and fellow students in public schools in the early 20th century.  They were put in the lowest reading/math groups, given low marks, pressured to drop out as soon as legally possible, made to sit in the back of the classroom, bullied, ostracized etc. (not to mention that there would probably be a few lessons on the evils of Popery).  Also do note that public schools were not any more (and generally less) secular than Catholic schools back then.

Quote
Probably not, on the principle that it was a KKK-backed piece of anti-Catholic legislation.

Well considering how you are pretty anti-Catholic (see comments about sex abuse scandals and contraception), I don't see how that'd be a problem, unless you're basically just saying anything the KKK supports should be opposed.

Sometimes, you are obliged to oppose something based on its reasoning rather than its content.  Perhaps on the other side of the spectrum, but Murray Rothbard had a good example; suppose some congressman in 1850 proposed a constitutional amendment declaring the total inviolability of private property and forbidding government interference with it.  Any good libertarian would be obliged to vote against it, since their definition of private property would certainly differ from that hypothetical congressman (who is seeking to protect slavery).


Title: Re: The Good Post Gallery
Post by: Mechaman on April 22, 2012, 04:22:03 pm
I love how seriously non-smokers take the issue of smoking. It just makes it that much more obvious that they've never smoked. It's like a virgin devoting his life to the cause of abstinence and expecting to be taken seriously.

Yeah, I mean, I don't really care if someone never wants to smoke (or drink, or whatever), but I don't understand why you wouldn't even want to try it. You've only got one life, and there'll be plenty of time to be a prude when you're older, guys. ;)


Title: Re: The Good Post Gallery
Post by: © tweed on April 22, 2012, 04:23:18 pm
I love how seriously non-smokers take the issue of smoking. It just makes it that much more obvious that they've never smoked. It's like a virgin devoting his life to the cause of abstinence and expecting to be taken seriously.

Yeah, I mean, I don't really care if someone never wants to smoke (or drink, or whatever), but I don't understand why you wouldn't even want to try it. You've only got one life, and there'll be plenty of time to be a prude when you're older, guys. ;)

just the opposite, I plan to do my most serious drug using when I am nearing death.


Title: Re: The Good Post Gallery
Post by: Mechaman on April 22, 2012, 04:24:18 pm
God bless you Tweed.

You are a man after Dave Leip's own heart.


Title: Re: The Good Post Gallery
Post by: Badger on April 22, 2012, 06:22:01 pm
Any post ending in "I think I know how, but will not say that much at this time," belongs in the Deluge, not the Gallery.

It is vintage spade.

Yes, but that's the problem.


Title: Re: The Good Post Gallery
Post by: opebo on April 26, 2012, 02:56:22 pm
Seems like a great many recent posts have been removed from this thread.


Title: Re: The Good Post Gallery
Post by: Snowstalker's Last Stand on April 26, 2012, 03:21:17 pm
The fascists are to blame, of course.


Title: Re: The Good Post Gallery
Post by: Grumpy Santa on April 26, 2012, 03:25:06 pm
Seems like a great many recent posts have been removed from this thread.

(http://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/GALLERY/1477_13_05_11_12_38_12.jpg)


Title: Re: The Good Post Gallery
Post by: opebo on April 26, 2012, 04:27:31 pm
The fascists are to blame, of course.

They used not to carry the removals to accolade-threads such as the comedy goldmine or 'best post' threads. 


Title: Re: The Good Post Gallery
Post by: The Mikado on April 26, 2012, 07:52:36 pm
This site is not pedophile-friendly.


Title: Re: The Good Post Gallery
Post by: oreomilkshake on April 26, 2012, 07:54:04 pm
Any post ending in "I think I know how, but will not say that much at this time," belongs in the Deluge, not the Gallery.

It is vintage spade.

Yes, but that's the problem.

There is no problem. He is a national treasure.


Title: Re: The Good Post Gallery
Post by: opebo on April 26, 2012, 08:36:37 pm
This site is not pedophile-friendly.

Well, that's not what the post in question was about at all, Mikado.

But it is an interesting question - what opinions are allowed?  If, in that particular thread, someone proposed a country where 'there was no law against murder', for example, would you allow that?  (I ask because in theory this is a tenet of the more anarchist of the libertarians, and you do provide an avatar for that set of opinions). 


Title: Re: The Good Post Gallery
Post by: The Mikado on April 27, 2012, 12:37:59 am
This site is not pedophile-friendly.

Well, that's not what the post in question was about at all, Mikado.

But it is an interesting question - what opinions are allowed?  If, in that particular thread, someone proposed a country where 'there was no law against murder', for example, would you allow that?  (I ask because in theory this is a tenet of the more anarchist of the libertarians, and you do provide an avatar for that set of opinions).  

Rules-lawyering and salami tactics won't get you out of this.  The post was completely unacceptable.  There is a certain degree of inherent subjectivity to the job, but it's blatantly clear that you meant what you posted in that thread more than you'd mean, say, proposing your country of 100,000 becoming the site of a reenactment of The Most Dangerous Game.


Title: Re: The Good Post Gallery
Post by: opebo on April 27, 2012, 11:12:28 am
This site is not pedophile-friendly.

Well, that's not what the post in question was about at all, Mikado.

But it is an interesting question - what opinions are allowed?  If, in that particular thread, someone proposed a country where 'there was no law against murder', for example, would you allow that?  (I ask because in theory this is a tenet of the more anarchist of the libertarians, and you do provide an avatar for that set of opinions).  

Rules-lawyering and salami tactics won't get you out of this.  The post was completely unacceptable.  There is a certain degree of inherent subjectivity to the job, but it's blatantly clear that you meant what you posted in that thread more than you'd mean, say, proposing your country of 100,000 becoming the site of a reenactment of The Most Dangerous Game.

But I don't expect to 'get out of it' at all, Mikado!  The point of my exchange with you above was only to try to demonstrate to you of the absolute chilling effect you have put in place. 


Title: Re: The Good Post Gallery
Post by: Torie on April 27, 2012, 03:16:20 pm
This site is not pedophile-friendly.

Well, that's not what the post in question was about at all, Mikado.

But it is an interesting question - what opinions are allowed?  If, in that particular thread, someone proposed a country where 'there was no law against murder', for example, would you allow that?  (I ask because in theory this is a tenet of the more anarchist of the libertarians, and you do provide an avatar for that set of opinions). 

One would think you get enough excitement living on the edge in Thailand opebo, to have any need to do it here.  Or has your life become more pedestrian over there now that you have joined the labor force, and have a more regular partner?


Title: Re: The Good Post Gallery
Post by: The Mikado on April 27, 2012, 03:42:47 pm
This site is not pedophile-friendly.

Well, that's not what the post in question was about at all, Mikado.

But it is an interesting question - what opinions are allowed?  If, in that particular thread, someone proposed a country where 'there was no law against murder', for example, would you allow that?  (I ask because in theory this is a tenet of the more anarchist of the libertarians, and you do provide an avatar for that set of opinions).  

Rules-lawyering and salami tactics won't get you out of this.  The post was completely unacceptable.  There is a certain degree of inherent subjectivity to the job, but it's blatantly clear that you meant what you posted in that thread more than you'd mean, say, proposing your country of 100,000 becoming the site of a reenactment of The Most Dangerous Game.

But I don't expect to 'get out of it' at all, Mikado!  The point of my exchange with you above was only to try to demonstrate to you of the absolute chilling effect you have put in place.  

As well there should be.  Pedophilia as acceptable is not a legitimate position to take, any more than "In my perfect world, we would kill all black people" would be.

EDIT:  This site is not and never was intended to be a "free speech zone" or whatever.


Title: Re: The Good Post Gallery
Post by: Torie on April 27, 2012, 04:02:32 pm
I think the line to be drawn is with respect something involving both 1) a felony if committed, and 2) a felony that most folks would also consider malum in se, rather than merely malum prohibitum (e.g., felonious possession/consumption of pot).  I am all for screwing anything that moves, but the screwee needs to be 18 - going lower is malum in se. So there is the lawyer's answer for you opebo, to stereo out the opera fan's chords on this. :)


Title: Re: The Good Post Gallery
Post by: Saturday's Cab Ride Home on April 30, 2012, 11:44:10 pm
Jeff, you never addressed my question: If you don't go to Kenya, does that mean God changed his mind?

No, it would mean I read it wrong.  I don't forsee that happening, though.

But didn't you say he verbally spoke to you?

Exactly.  Read two things - read the second sentence of the quoted post and read my previous post in response to jmfcst's question.

OK.  But you said he spoke to you.  If he verbally spoke to you, what exactly did he say?  "Jeff, go to Kenya" or something you ahd to interpret?

I am not going to keep answering your questions. Obviously, you either don't belive that God still speaks to His children or you refuse to accept any answer I provide. I know what God told me so people need to accept that.

Besides, this forum thinks the only acceptable answer is to stay in Oklahoma. They refuse to consider that God sometimes asks His children to do things that go against societal thinking.


No one is suggesting that your only options in life is the hell hole of a state you live in or Kenya..

What is being said is you should actually think rationally about what it instead of deciding what you want to do and labeling it as God told you to do it. 

You seem to have such strong feelings about certain things that you convince yourself God is telling you to do something when in fact no such thing is happening.  We have been down this road before, it never ends well....


Title: Re: The Good Post Gallery
Post by: opebo on May 01, 2012, 03:13:54 pm
...Pedophilia as acceptable is not a legitimate position to take, any more than "In my perfect world, we would kill all black people" would be.

I think the line to be drawn is with respect something involving both 1) a felony if committed, and 2) a felony that most folks would also consider malum in se, rather than merely malum prohibitum (e.g., felonious possession/consumption of pot).  I am all for screwing anything that moves, but the screwee needs to be 18 - going lower is malum in se.

So, conflating these two diverse sources, would, for example, posting here in advocacy of a reduction in the age-of-consent to 16 be categorized as pedophilia and thus a disallowed speech?


Title: Re: The Good Post Gallery
Post by: Grumpy Santa on May 01, 2012, 03:49:43 pm
Why does the Good Post Gallery only have 3 pages to it?


Title: Re: The Good Post Gallery
Post by: opebo on May 01, 2012, 03:54:29 pm
Why does the Good Post Gallery only have 3 pages to it?

Well they removed a lot of it.


Title: Re: The Good Post Gallery
Post by: LastVoter on May 01, 2012, 10:32:09 pm

Graduation is one of life's most pitiable sights.


Title: Re: The Good Post Gallery
Post by: Napoleon on May 02, 2012, 08:14:50 pm
My impression is social conservatives are generally more traditionalist and authoritarian than most people, and those who are left-of-centre on economic issues are especially more willing compared to other groups when it comes to codifying their stringent interpretations of morality. However, the normatively conformist folks in an economically centrist or right-of-centre society are not going to vocally advocate for left-wing goals unless they become convinced such an agenda is legitimized by an urgent higher calling or a serious religious mandate (e.g., liberation theology in Latin America).

That is to say, in a place like the States a lot of social and classical liberalists, social democrats, and democratic socialists seem to be relatively non-conforming - not caring enough about traditions and social norms to enforce them all using state coercion, whereas the socons and some of them pseudo-libertarian types really do care enough to make many tenets of their respective cultures into law. The ones with leftist sympathies on economic matters are conservative on most issues - not just "social" ones - hence they go along with a mixed economic agenda and perhaps utilize community service and charitable donations (which are culturally approved of) rather than politics (which would be a deviant break from old, tried-and-true methods) as their outlet for compassion?

It would be the socons with right-of-centre views who would usually not have their own parties in a world where socialist policies are the well-established norm. The capitalists amongst socons, in their conservative political mindset, would ally with mainstream factions rather than break off on their own to form some kind of radical alternative. The changes to society they want have to stay within the bounds of traditional norms and policy goals. Likewise, in a sufficiently secular society, socons would be anti-religious even as they treat their views with reverence and tend to think of folks as fitting into hierarchies of superior and inferior positions. Or is there a better explanation?

Edit: This would also account for Pingvin's observation. In Russia some conservatives and many reactionaries adhere to Marxist-Leninish or Stalinish views on the economy - their yearning for tradition and restoration of the good 'ole days involves a throwback to aspects of Soviet rule as opposed to what the paleoconservatives here conjure up in their minds about the States' past.


Title: Re: The Good Post Gallery
Post by: Torie on May 02, 2012, 09:31:23 pm
My impression is social conservatives are generally more traditionalist and authoritarian than most people, and those who are left-of-centre on economic issues are especially more willing compared to other groups when it comes to codifying their stringent interpretations of morality. However, the normatively conformist folks in an economically centrist or right-of-centre society are not going to vocally advocate for left-wing goals unless they become convinced such an agenda is legitimized by an urgent higher calling or a serious religious mandate (e.g., liberation theology in Latin America).

That is to say, in a place like the States a lot of social and classical liberalists, social democrats, and democratic socialists seem to be relatively non-conforming - not caring enough about traditions and social norms to enforce them all using state coercion, whereas the socons and some of them pseudo-libertarian types really do care enough to make many tenets of their respective cultures into law. The ones with leftist sympathies on economic matters are conservative on most issues - not just "social" ones - hence they go along with a mixed economic agenda and perhaps utilize community service and charitable donations (which are culturally approved of) rather than politics (which would be a deviant break from old, tried-and-true methods) as their outlet for compassion?

It would be the socons with right-of-centre views who would usually not have their own parties in a world where socialist policies are the well-established norm. The capitalists amongst socons, in their conservative political mindset, would ally with mainstream factions rather than break off on their own to form some kind of radical alternative. The changes to society they want have to stay within the bounds of traditional norms and policy goals. Likewise, in a sufficiently secular society, socons would be anti-religious even as they treat their views with reverence and tend to think of folks as fitting into hierarchies of superior and inferior positions. Or is there a better explanation?

Edit: This would also account for Pingvin's observation. In Russia some conservatives and many reactionaries adhere to Marxist-Leninish or Stalinish views on the economy - their yearning for tradition and restoration of the good 'ole days involves a throwback to aspects of Soviet rule as opposed to what the paleoconservatives here conjure up in their minds about the States' past.

Indeed a fine and thought provoking post. I read it twice, word for word.  I would only add, that as a practical matter, something that breaks the norm and upsets traditionalists, which then for whatever reason works reasonably well, even from a traditionalists perspective, than of course it becomes more of a consensus that even hard right but pragmatist traditionalists, dare not cross swords with. That is my attempt at an explanation of the apparent irony embedded in the post. In fact, it is not ironical at all.


Title: Re: The Good Post Gallery
Post by: Mechaman on May 04, 2012, 03:04:49 pm
Very good point here from Mr. Morden about one of my threads:

Why is this in FC now? It was intended to be in the 2012 board.

Because the 2012 board is intended for discussion of the 2012 election, not rhetorical questions about Atlas itself.



Title: Re: The Good Post Gallery
Post by: Lief 🐋 on May 04, 2012, 06:04:38 pm
When he's not being purely condescending and intentionally opaque, Al makes great posts like the following:

Because that pretty little chart that has become so absolutely and utterly ubiquitous on the internet does not actually represent any kind of reality. Political parties represent interests, in one way or another, and that's how they win votes (or don't).


Title: Re: The Good Post Gallery
Post by: Napoleon on May 05, 2012, 03:13:35 am
Why people like Antonio, or Belgiansocialist are so much in love with the EU when the union has done more than any other single institution or organisation to prevent and roll back Socialist policies in Europe.

I'm not some kind of utopist living in dreamland, SC. I'm well aware on EU's flaws, which are enormous and disgusting. I hate the way the Commission works without any actual mandate from the European People, I hate the fact they enact failed neoliberal policies, the fact selfish countries always refuse any progress in common solidarity, the fact Germans have imposed their retarded austerity dogma and are ready to ruin every country to maintain it. However, I also realize that without the EU, European countries are even more screwed. As weak as European integration is, the little bit we have is still indispensable and we'll need more in the following years. In the word's globalized economy, countries which represent 1% of the world population and face a massive demographic ageing won't be remain competitive for long, and especially won't be able to sustain comprehensive welfare states as multinational corporations grow stronger. European federalism is the only way for Europe to survive as one of the world's power, to escape the natural decline we are starting to experience. Not the European Federalism as we know it, but real European federalism : with a democratic federal government, elected by the European people and which has an effective power over national government. Why is it so hard to understand ? Why do you Euroskeptics systematically take commitment to the europeist ideal as a support to EU as it currently exists ? Why the possibility to reform EU and correct its flaws rather than outright disbanding it is always discarded ? This is what I don't understand.


Title: Re: The Good Post Gallery
Post by: Napoleon on May 05, 2012, 03:28:15 am
Unemployment Rate Dips 0.1%, But Workforce Participation Rate Falls 0.2%
 
By Gregory Gwyn-Williams, Jr.
May 4, 2012

The April jobs report showed employers added fewer workers than expected with nonfarm payrolls rising by only 115,000.

http://cnsnews.com/blog/gregory-gwyn-williams-jr/unemployment-rate-dips-01-workforce-participation-rate-falls-02

-----

All the need to do is keep reducing the alleged labor force!

To simplify this for Obama supporters:

I agree that the pace of growth could be greatly improved, but your analysis here doesn't really tell the whole picture and makes things appear unnecessarily negative by excluding some key details.


Quote
1.)   The unadjusted population 16 and over in April of 2012 was approximately 242,784,000 (according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics) whereas that population was approximately 242,604,000 in March, an increase of approximately 180,000.

180,000 new people 16 and over in the United States. Presumably, 180k = (# of people turning 16 - # of adult deaths) + net migration.

Using the estimated  CIA World Factbook (https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/us.html) net nigration rate and population for the US in 2012 to figure out expected migration for the year, and dividing it by 12, that give us an estimated net migration of roughly 95k for the month. Using these CDC statistical tables for death by age group (http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/dvs/MortFinal2007_Worktable23f.pdf), I estimate that 195k deaths 16+ occurred in April. So, with the 180k increase, that means 280k kids reached age 16 last month. (As an aside, I did estimate a 325k total for this number using census records for 1996 births and the infant/juvenile death rate, but that number's the most likely to be inaccurate of my three estimates because there's a much bigger month to month variation in births than in deaths or migration).

Quote
2.)   According to the same source, the unadjusted Civilian Labor Force was approximately 153,905,000 I April of 2012, whereas it was approximately 154,316,000 in March, a decrease of approximately 411,000!

First off, given the estimated 10,000 baby boomers that retire (http://www.politifact.com/ohio/statements/2011/sep/26/john-boehner/house-speaker-john-boehner-says-10000-baby-boomers/) every day, around 310k people left the labor force last month via retirements alone. In addition, the BLS's April report shows a participation rate of 72% in the 16-64 group and and 23% for 65+; estimating from the CDC chart linked above that roughly 52k deaths occurred in the 16-64 age group and 146k deaths 65+. This means that about 71k people exited the labor force last month through death (37.5k in the former age group, 33.5k in the latter age group). Therefore, about 381k of the 411k drop can be attributed to deaths and retirements alone.

Furthermore, regarding the gap here with the increase you note in your first point, note that most of the population growth can be attributed to teenagers who turned 16 in last month. Even discounting the fact that teenage participation in the labor force in incredibly low (http://www.frbsf.org/publications/economics/letter/2010/el2010-27-2.png), very few 16 year olds will be looking for a job in April- they'll wait until they're out of school for the summer to start looking for a job and entering the labor force (The BLS notes that this is a very consistent trend among youth (http://bls.gov/news.release/youth.nr0.htm)). With these newly work-age (and almost entirely non-job seeking) teenagers actually outnumbering the overall work-age population increase by a hundred thousand, and the above explanation for the decline in the total civilian labor force, the disparity you note between your first two points here can't really be construed to mean anything.


Quote
3.)   In April of 2012 per the BLS there were approximately 88,879,000 (unadjusted) persons not in the labor force, and increase of approximately 591,000 from the number in March.

Noting my findings above, the ~310k new retirements and ~280k new 16 year olds who almost universally aren't looking for work pretty much entirely explain this number.



You seem to be suggesting that the Bureau of Labor Statistics is somehow cooking the books to show a reduction in unemployment by reclassifying unemployed job-seekers as discouraged and/or marginally attached workers. If this was true, we'd see increases in U-4 and U-5 that mirror decreases in U-3, the official unemployment rate. However, that demonstrably isn't so. According to the seasonally adjusted numbers, last month's 0.1% decline in the unemployment rate was accompanied by a 0.1% decline in U-5 to 9.5%, while U-4 remained steady at 8.7%. Furthermore, the decline in unemployment since December from 8.5% to 8.1% has been accompanied by a reduction in U-4, from 9.1% to 8.7%, as well as U-5, from 10.0% to 9.5% (for the record, U-6, which also includes underemployment, also declined from 15.2% to 14.5% over those four months). Therefore, there is nobody "reducing the alleged labor force"; unemployment numbers are genuinely improving, even among those not counted in the official unemployment rate. Reductions in labor force participation are mostly due to the fact that the baby boomers have started retiring in massive numbers, and because of this you should expect a slow-but-steady decline in participation over the next decade or two, regardless of how the economy is doing.

Also, since you seem to appreciate prefer using the numbers that aren't seasonally adjusted, I think here at the end I should include for you the BLS's unadjusted unemployment rate changes between March and April :)

U-3 (Official Unemployment Rate): 8.4% to 7.7%
U-4: 8.9% to 8.3%
U-5: 9.7% to 9.1%
U-6: 14.8% to 14.1%


Title: Re: The Good Post Gallery
Post by: A Strange Reflection on May 05, 2012, 04:06:32 am
We laugh and amuse ourselves at this little "heartland conservative" minstrel show, but it's pretty terrifying that Naso is just one of tens of millions of Americans who, through the education system, the media and cultural institutions, have been systemically brainwashed to think like this.


Title: Re: The Good Post Gallery
Post by: shua on May 05, 2012, 07:42:07 pm
My first impression is to say we should simply ask some conservatives rather than guessing about it ourselves.

In lieu of that, I figure that culturally conservative folk have grown fond of well-established principles, traditions, and institutions in politics and often look for gradual, cautious means of improving upon them without having to embrace entirely new strategies or reject what they consider to be tried-and-true theories. They are not really anti-intellectual so much as highly suspicious of folks who assert society ought to undergo fundamental changes, not entirely opposed to equality so much as aware that human beings are unequal in a number of significant ways by their very nature and that hierarchies encourage productivity and order via a system of incentives; and they are not intolerant zealots so much as they like the social norms of their nation and do not want those norms to rapidly change - either for better or (as a worrisome risk) for the worse. The conservative has a less idealistic impression of "human nature" than do many of their opponents, and is hence okay with deterring or coping with certain social problems (e.g., poverty, crime, recidivism, war, greed, politically incorrect attitudes, etc.) instead of pumping vast quantities of resources into what might very well be futile efforts to wholly do away with them. We ought to be strong, respect our leaders, honor our sacred customs, support our own, and make do with what we have got - not stick our heads up in the clouds like naive dreamers. We've a lot to lose from unneeded gambling.

The progressive or radical can easily seem elitist, deviant, rude, reckless, malcontent, and detached from reality.


Title: Re: The Good Post Gallery
Post by: Napoleon on May 06, 2012, 12:25:40 am
I never said Mitt Romney wasn't a phony, but he actually has a shot of winning. He's not blowing his chances out of proportion. I understand the minor parties run candidates for President to get their names out there, but when they actually believe they're going to win? Nuh uh.

The point I was making about Hospers was that he won an electoral vote in '72. Johnson won't win an electoral vote.

If you're going to sell out, be my guest. But don't act indignant and self-righteous just because Johnson wants to boost some (well-needed) morale for the LP.

You really think that Johnson thinks that he'll win?

Quote from: reason.com
Johnson has stated that his goal, short of winning, is to reach 15 percent in the polls to qualify for the national debates and to pick up at least 5 percent of the vote in November order to secure public funding for the party in 2016.
citation (http://reason.com/blog/2012/05/05/gary-johnson-wins-libertarian-party-nomi)

Nobody runs a campaign saying they're going to lose (especially not with fleeting bedfellows such as yourself.)

Besides, John Hospers got like, 3000 votes and his one electoral vote was astroturf. If anything, Johnson would actually be in okay shape to get an electoral vote since Paulites are taking over State Conventions (which, in some states, choose electors.)

For the sake of argument, I'll cede that Johnson's candidacy (and support) is predicated on the fact that he can "get votes." Romney's entire existence has been about getting votes, principles and results be damned. What's your beef?

But hey, if you're content to stay on the GOPlantation and vote for nominees that have literally nothing in common with you, then go ahead.

... just to serve in politics.

Well, I must admit that campaigning in a Republican primary on a platform to legalize gay marriage and marijuana is generally the mark of a shrewd politician.


Title: Re: The Good Post Gallery
Post by: Mechaman on May 06, 2012, 01:20:05 am
I never said Mitt Romney wasn't a phony, but he actually has a shot of winning. He's not blowing his chances out of proportion. I understand the minor parties run candidates for President to get their names out there, but when they actually believe they're going to win? Nuh uh.

The point I was making about Hospers was that he won an electoral vote in '72. Johnson won't win an electoral vote.

If you're going to sell out, be my guest. But don't act indignant and self-righteous just because Johnson wants to boost some (well-needed) morale for the LP.

You really think that Johnson thinks that he'll win?

Quote from: reason.com
Johnson has stated that his goal, short of winning, is to reach 15 percent in the polls to qualify for the national debates and to pick up at least 5 percent of the vote in November order to secure public funding for the party in 2016.
citation (http://reason.com/blog/2012/05/05/gary-johnson-wins-libertarian-party-nomi)

Nobody runs a campaign saying they're going to lose (especially not with fleeting bedfellows such as yourself.)

Besides, John Hospers got like, 3000 votes and his one electoral vote was astroturf. If anything, Johnson would actually be in okay shape to get an electoral vote since Paulites are taking over State Conventions (which, in some states, choose electors.)

For the sake of argument, I'll cede that Johnson's candidacy (and support) is predicated on the fact that he can "get votes." Romney's entire existence has been about getting votes, principles and results be damned. What's your beef?

But hey, if you're content to stay on the GOPlantation and vote for nominees that have literally nothing in common with you, then go ahead.

... just to serve in politics.

Well, I must admit that campaigning in a Republican primary on a platform to legalize gay marriage and marijuana is generally the mark of a shrewd politician.

Post of the Year nominee right here.


Title: Re: The Good Post Gallery
Post by: Redalgo on May 06, 2012, 01:36:24 pm
Also, if you were like "yeah!" you are part of the problem with political discourse in this country.


Title: Re: The Good Post Gallery
Post by: GM R2D2 on May 06, 2012, 02:18:11 pm
I never said Mitt Romney wasn't a phony, but he actually has a shot of winning. He's not blowing his chances out of proportion. I understand the minor parties run candidates for President to get their names out there, but when they actually believe they're going to win? Nuh uh.

The point I was making about Hospers was that he won an electoral vote in '72. Johnson won't win an electoral vote.

If you're going to sell out, be my guest. But don't act indignant and self-righteous just because Johnson wants to boost some (well-needed) morale for the LP.

You really think that Johnson thinks that he'll win?

Quote from: reason.com
Johnson has stated that his goal, short of winning, is to reach 15 percent in the polls to qualify for the national debates and to pick up at least 5 percent of the vote in November order to secure public funding for the party in 2016.
citation (http://reason.com/blog/2012/05/05/gary-johnson-wins-libertarian-party-nomi)

Nobody runs a campaign saying they're going to lose (especially not with fleeting bedfellows such as yourself.)

Besides, John Hospers got like, 3000 votes and his one electoral vote was astroturf. If anything, Johnson would actually be in okay shape to get an electoral vote since Paulites are taking over State Conventions (which, in some states, choose electors.)

For the sake of argument, I'll cede that Johnson's candidacy (and support) is predicated on the fact that he can "get votes." Romney's entire existence has been about getting votes, principles and results be damned. What's your beef?

But hey, if you're content to stay on the GOPlantation and vote for nominees that have literally nothing in common with you, then go ahead.

... just to serve in politics.

Well, I must admit that campaigning in a Republican primary on a platform to legalize gay marriage and marijuana is generally the mark of a shrewd politician.

Post of the Year nominee right here.


Title: Re: The Good Post Gallery
Post by: A Strange Reflection on May 07, 2012, 04:59:05 pm
Ladies and Gentlemen of the Jury, THE FASCIST PRESIDENTS OF THE UNITED STATES!:

1. George Washington: Sent a bunch of troops to enforce his will against a bunch of Appalachian Scots-Irish (whatever the hell that term means) farmers who protested the Whiskey Tax=FASCIST!
2. John Adams: Uuuuuummmmmm, Aliens and Sedition Act!  Heeeeeello!  Did you sleep in history class or something?!=FASCIST!
3. Thomas Jefferson: Tripled the size of the United States, had grand designs for "civilizing" the Injuns, and my god the trade embargo yuck!=FASCIST!
4. James Madison: Got the US into an unnecessary war and was crazy enough to have an army with Andrew Jackson and William Harrison in it=FASCIST!
5. James Monroe: Was President during the so-called "Era of Goodfeelings" that was effectively an era of one party rule=FASCIST!!!!!
6. John Quincy Adams: Exists because of John Adams=FASCIST!
7. Andrew Jackson: REALLY loved to kill people=FASCIST!
8. Martin Van Buren: Was short and was balding, obvious signs of a FASICST!
9. William H. Harrison: Forced a bunch of people to unwilling stand out in the rain during a cold March day for three hours just to hear him give an Inaugural Address=FASCIST!
10. John Tyler: Was an asshole who disagreed with everybody=FASCIST!
11. James Polk: Got us in a war to make sure we kept Texas=FASCIST!
12. Zachary Taylor: Declared war on healthy diets=FASCIST!
13. Millard Fillmore: Is easily confused with that f***ing smart ass duck on the Sunday Morning Cartoon strips in the local newspaper, therefore a FASCIST!
14. Franklin Pierce: Tried to get the US into Cuba almost fifty years before McKinley did=FASCIST!
15. James Buchanan: Tried to kill some Morons Mormons to prove to Justin Morrill that he was indeed a real man=FASCIST!
16. Abraham Lincoln: Drafted a bunch of immigrants off the boats to fight in the Civil War so he could drink all of their whiskey=FASCIST!
17. Andrew Johnson: Tried so hard, desperately hard even, to be John Tyler=FASCIST!
18. Ulysses S. Grant: Was alright with Military Reconstruction on some (admittedly very backwards and racist) states.  See also "corruption"=FASCIST!
19. Rutherford B. Hayes: Hated alcohol so much that he forbid it at the White House and his wife openly bragged and held parties devoted to lemonade lovers=FASCIST!
20. James Garfield: Was from Ohio=FACIST!
21. Chester A. Arthur: Was really born in Canada and his father was an Arishman=FACIST!
22. S. Grover Cleveland: Started a love affair with Great Britain=FASCIST!
23. Benjamin Harrison: Brought forth yet another era of dickwaving high tariffs=FASCIST!
24. S. Grover Cleveland: Really liked to shoot Union members on strike=FASCIST!
25. William McKinley: Really liked protective tariffs AND imperialism=FASCIST!
26. Theodore "Teddy" Roosevelt: Had a hardon for a huge navy and machoism=FASCIST!
27. William H. Taft: Killed OVER 9000 "Trusts" while President=FASCIST!
28. Woodrow Wilson: Woodrow Wilson=FASCIST!
29. Warren G. Harding: Was so trusting of his friends and never ever being suspicious of corrupt people to the point of either extreme naivete or FASCISM!
30. Calvin Coolidge: Despite being commonly known as the "wet" candidate in 1924, didn't do anything about Prohibition and was actually *shocker* okay with federal government agents poisoning the alcohol used in illegal brewery operations=FASCIST!
31. Herbert Hoover: Was dedicated more to trade warfare than he was fixing the economy and often claimed, with a smugf** look on his face, how proud he was of the low immigration rates into the US while President=FASCIST!
32. Franklin Roosevelt: OMG he BLEW UP THE GOVERNMENT!  Also, Japanese Internment and attempts at court stacking and OVER 9000% INCOME TAXATION ON TEH RICH!!!  OMG SUPER FASCIST!
33. Harry Truman: Took on the name "Hiroshima" Harry with pride after blowing up tons of Japanese peeps after a translation error.  Also, loved the idea of war with Communists=FASCIST!
34. Dwight "Ike" Eisenhower: Was a god-fearing man and expanded upon the now popular idea that the US should bomb everything and everybody to make the world a more US favorable world=FASCIST!
35. John F. Kennedy: Was Ike's Illegitimate Son=FASCIST!
36. Lyndon Johnson: Looked uglier than a bag of dog sh*t, liked to having public pissing contests, oh and HOW MANY BOYS DID HE KILL YESTERDAY!?=FASCIST!
37. Richard M. Nixon: Took LBJ's plan of killing lots of people by using less people and more airplanes with explosive devices in a carpet formation.  Also, had to cheat to beat GEORGE FREAKING MCGOVERN!  MY GOD WHAT A FASCIST!
38. Gerald Ford: Forgave Richard Nixon!  What a wuss!  AND A FASCIST!
39. James "Jimmy Boy" Carter: Was a fan of federal judges who have a hard on for gun control=FASCIST!
40. Ronald W. Reagan: Loved Apartheid South Africa, loved to bomb nations that were pissed off at us for being interventionist dickheads, loved to bailout failing car corporations, endorsed the idea of infinite deficits and limited revenues, believed that the military budget should be massive despite campaigning on "smaller limited government", actually his entire presidency was one huge experiment in hypocrisy=FASCIST!
41. George HW Bush: The Politically Correct Ronald Reagan=POLITICALLY CORRECT FASCIST!
42. William J. "Slick Willie" Clinton: Ronald Reagan's illegitimate transsexual son.  Liked to conduct "explosive polling", whereby whenever he gets into a controversy he just sends in some fighter jets to bomb a randomass Sudanese sugar producing factory to raise his approval ratings.  Also, was such a huge ass moderate hero fascist that he was both in favor of Gun Control and Defending Marriage=FASCIST!
43. George Dumbya Bush: Liked the smell of napalm in the morning and American nationalism and threatening nations with WAR!=FASCIST!
44. Barack H. Obama=the White Bill Clinton=FASCIST!

So there you have it ladies and gentlemen, THE FORTY FOUR FASCIST PRESIDENTS OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA!


Title: Re: The Good Post Gallery
Post by: Averroës on May 08, 2012, 11:45:23 pm
[context]

Of course.  Everybody does it.  Sometimes it's on purpose, mostly it's not.  Sometimes it's obvious, mostly it's not.  For some people it's every post.  Hell, for some people, it's their entire character.  Others do it rarely.  But we all do it.


Title: Re: The Good Post Gallery
Post by: Napoleon on May 09, 2012, 10:31:04 am
I never meant to imply that all gay marriage opponents are gay, I was merely referencing a study that suggests homophobia is psychologically connected to unexpressed homosexual feelings, so it wouldn't be unreasonable to suspect that a supporter of the Amendment has some gay tendencies.

The resulting misinterpretations and flame wars led to my closing of it.

Scott, as much as I consider you a thoughtful and intelligent poster in general, you should tone down your rhetoric towards those who for some reasons do not support gay marriage.
Constantly implying that people who are against gay marrage are gay themselves, calling them all "bigots" or making equations such as being against gay marriage = being against interracial marriage or pro-slavery does not help your cause. Well, it may help you on this forum because that's the general attitude here, but I think you are intellectually able to argue for your point of view by using more respectful and more appropriate words.

Well given what we know about the spectrum of human sexuality; knowing both what it is and most importantly what it isn't denying us the right to marry; the right to financial security with the people we love and the inheritance, next of kin, property, seperation and other such rights that straights can get through signing a bit of paper is to me bigoted.

It pains me to think all I want to do is to be able to have the right to marry, yet flick through newspapers and see divorces, forced marriages, passport scam marriages, moral preachers marrying for the 6th time and some two penny tart getting married yet again just so she can appear in the front page of magazine. Gays aren't responsible for running marriage into the ground, so what other 'damage' do you think we can do to something thats already been cheapened?


Title: Re: The Good Post Gallery
Post by: Mechaman on May 11, 2012, 02:05:46 am
Who needs television or movies when you've got... this? All of the sadistic pleasures of a cockfight or a gangbang in nine neat little pages.


Title: Re: The Good Post Gallery
Post by: opebo on May 13, 2012, 12:13:29 am
As well there should be.  Pedophilia as acceptable is not a legitimate position to take, any more than "In my perfect world, we would kill all black people" would be.

That's ridiculous, Mikado.  You equate sexual relations to killing?  And surely you realize that homosexuality as acceptable used to be 'not a legitimate position to take' - or for that matter interracial marriage.

In any case, if you don't like the killing, why do you accept the genocidal political point of view of the pro-capitalist posters without a second thought?  The point is that you are imposing a very narrow and strict view of what is appropriate thought, which essentially disallows any questioning or critiquing of the status-quo (liberal/capitalist/christian).


Title: Re: The Good Post Gallery
Post by: Scott on May 13, 2012, 11:41:11 am
This rather belongs in the Utterly Sickening Posts Sh*tmine, but for the lack of such thread I got to post it there.

The first two were positive events.

Click for context.

While nothing will cause lefties to spaz out more than suggesting Allende/the Spanish Republicans/Sandinistas were worse than their opposition (why only things happening in Spanish-speaking countries cause spaz-out reactions I don't know), the fact remains that the Latin left, especially of the Commie variety, especially of the pro-Soviet Commie variety at the height of the Cold War, were and are not very nice people.  If you don't believe that, I'll invite you to move to Cuba.  Since they'll put you up in the relative luxury accomodations reserved for Useful Idiots, you should subsequently renounce your European citizenships and get yourself arrested for a real representative taste.  I'm sure you'll love it.  They have nice weather and excellent cigars!

Edit:  Addendum:  Latin politics is not good guys and bad guys, it's generally bad guys and worse guys.  Pinochet was very bad but far better than what would have happened otherwise.  Perhaps saying the coup was a "positive event" was a bit too breezy, more like a non-negative event.

This only demonstrates your utterly ignorance about Latin-American politics. And that you're nothing but an imbecile. Who else was a commie, Goulart? Well, If those 'commies' had won, there would be the rising of a rural middle-class, which would avoid heavy rural flight at the 70's (probably the most important influence on southern-american underdevelopment on the following decades) and foment national industry, making an inner force for autonomous development. That was the whole matter. There, here or in Argentina, the Andes, anywhere in the region. Lula's success is only and entirely based on a new version of this reading. We would all have achieved 4 decades earlier what Brazil is achieving now, alone.
Let me tell you something, that being an imbecile you surely have no clue. These countries were not a Caribbean island run by US controlled mobsters. Even if TEH KOMMIUNIEESTZ had reached power and installed a soviet regime (something that only someone completely ignorant about what was the Latin-american 60's and 70's left or even the hardcore left would imagine. And don't come with Cuba, Castro wasn't even a commie before the USA positioned itself against him neither Cuba was a mess before the eastern block debacle - It was actually the Latin-american country with the best achievements, around that time) China would be the comparison. The soviets were less interested in such a development than the USA.

The struggle wasn't between 'commies' and 'non-commies'. It was between autonomists who assumed this position based on emancipation leanings (the main 'commie' speech was that we were never really independent / free) and an ancient elite whose power was based on being the foremen of great powers interests. It wasn't about central planning. It was about anti-imperialism.
We're talking here about people whose economical interest (poor people interested physicians, inner market oriented farmers, urban middle class professionals) was the existence of autochtonous populations with consumer's power. There are few things more imbecilic than the double-standard a-historical a-geographical bullsh**t you'd written.
Sure, if you believe that the sake of international capital based economy (which is conceptually linked to imperialist control, always - and I don't really care about what you think about the term 'imperialism', It is a historically based and valid geopolitical concept) is above anything else, than I must agree that a good guys/bad guys debate is pointless here. But to anyone who believes on humanism, people's empowerment and emancipation, democratic control of your own future and other political concepts which are important to non-imbecils, than, pal, It was a good guys / bad guys opposition. And those 'commies' were the good guys. They were the ones making the defence of freedom around.

The most amusing thing here is the undying tentative of putting the blame on those who were taken from democratically chosen positions. Even after debate over debate (on academical conditions, surely - I really don't care about what hacks have to say) demonstrates It's pure feces. This only sickens me. "Allende would make a self-coup! Goulart would make a self-coup!". F**k!!! How people are imbeciloid enough to not laugh on this!
What if Allende nationalized the whole freaking economy?? He was elected to do It, imbecile. Presidentialism is not parliamentarism. Any impeachment based on opposition to these policies are just grotesquely antidemocratic. Once democratic institutions are preserved and people can overturn what was done (which is something, alas, that our neoliberal fake-democracies are unable to provide, vide Greece), I'm sorry to inform, this is democracy. The rule from the people, by the people and to the people.

The second most amusing thing (and It always tells a lot to me) is that every time I read/listen to this specific bullsh**t - Chilean 73's coup - the round's coup defender is always a self proclaimed 'libertarian'. This only demonstrates how fake are the great share of these 'freedomers'. It's clearly not about freedom, It's about economics. That same brand of imbeciles defends another islander dictatorship as the quintessential model for society's organization.

Anyway, don't bother answering this. Any imbecile defender of Pinochet's coup is automatically on my ignore list. And, to the other guys, sorry about the rant. I just cannot stay calm on the whole matter of the XXth century's second half Latin-american dictatorship cycle. Personal matter.


Title: Re: The Good Post Gallery
Post by: Saturday's Cab Ride Home on May 13, 2012, 12:40:02 pm
I was just about to post that Scott. Ironic that came out of the Deluge.


Title: Re: The Good Post Gallery
Post by: Marokai Backbeat on May 16, 2012, 03:44:15 pm
The tangent Vosem is taking this thread on is the perfect example of what is wrong with the Republican Party right now. 

I have no problem with people taking conservative stances on issues, but recently it appears conservatism is supposed to be some sort of lifestyle where you take conservative stances on everything.  They invent a "conservative side" to every fact whose author might have voted Democrat at one point in his life.

There is no reason to debate Vosem on the "issue" of the morality of caps on campaign fundraising because it is not an issue.  There is no right or wrong side.  There is the fact that the campaign fundraising system is broken due to corporate spending and SuperPAC influence.  There is no opposite side. 

On campaign financing, like on all the subjects, the Republican vs. Democratic debate should be on how best to fix these loopholes. 

But there are no "hows" to compare.  The problem with the Republican Party is that they've turned politics into a series of Yes or No questions.  There's no option A or option B.   That's where things went south for me in my ability to support the party.   

On Obamacare, the debate was never "which plan is best suited to give our populous universal health care coverage?"  The debate was "do you believe the populous has a right to universal health care coverage?" That's a ridiculous question; a question where I'm forced to say yes because no is such a stupid response and therefore support the Democrats not because I believe in their plan but because it's the only plan.

Yeah, that's my moderate rant.


Title: Re: The Good Post Gallery
Post by: Trounce-'em Theresa on May 16, 2012, 11:40:21 pm
I live just south of the Md/VA border. Md. has better roads, better police, better schools. The schools part is probably the largest benefit, people in Va. complain about how terrible the schools are.

You get what you pay for which is why in my county in Va. there are only two deputies on duty on weekends to patrol the whole county.

But on the plus side we have lower taxes. And cheaper cigarettes.


Title: Re: The Good Post Gallery
Post by: shua on May 17, 2012, 12:20:09 am
It's not so much that this is sane, it's that the idea that there's any analogous basis for constructing a view of the world that is sane is immensely problematic, unless you're selectively defining sanity to mean agreement with your own position, or using it as a shorthand for the most common types of mental processes in a population.

Ah yes, very good point. The problem is that I fully embrace the insanity in my trying to understand things I don't or can't. The point of religion is that it provides people with infinite understanding if they can communicate with a being that created and fully understands all. It puts people in a mentally destructive state of believing in their own belief. I have complete doubt in my reality, but religion depends on the absence of doubt.

It purports to, but there are ways of doing religiosity that can leave room for doubt or even introduce more doubt. Interacting with God (through prayer and mystical experiences) doesn't render me positive of God so much as it does less positive of the rest of my interactions. I do believe in my own belief, but that's because there isn't much else to stand on, and I recognize that that's the reason.

Of course, if the question were 'Is belief in God as most commonly processed in the minds of less-than-mystically-inclined believers harmful to society?', I'd have a different answer. It's just that I don't agree that secularization ameliorates the part of this that's the biggest problem.


Title: Re: The Good Post Gallery
Post by: opebo on May 17, 2012, 03:51:17 pm
Except the currency hasn't splintered. It's still salvageable. 70% of Greeks want to remain on the Euro. The Chancellor of Germany wants the Greeks to remain on the Euro. The head of the ECB wants Greece to remain on the Euro. The heads of ND, Syriza, PASOK, and DIMAR want Greece to remain on the Euro. All the significant parties all agree. The only one dreaming is you. The real dream? The real dream is the notion that high inflation is somehow a threat in this situation. High inflation is not, and never will be a problem so long as the Euro holds together. I am willing to bet anything on that.


Title: Re: The Good Post Gallery
Post by: Mechaman on May 18, 2012, 01:20:35 pm
Kind of old, but still good:

Good for him!  I hear he also did males, though only in a manly fashion (top).  However, the only aspect of his personal lifestyle that would be repulsive to a reasonable person would be his impoliteness and agressiveness. 

It is time that America face the fact that teenage girls are hot, and it is perfectly normal for men to have sex with them.

That said, it will be nice to see Swartzenaegar go down, for whatever silly reason appeals to the voters.. or maybe even for his right-wing politics.


Title: Re: The Good Post Gallery
Post by: opebo on May 18, 2012, 01:33:25 pm
Kind of old, but still good:

Good for him!  I hear he also did males, though only in a manly fashion (top).  However, the only aspect of his personal lifestyle that would be repulsive to a reasonable person would be his impoliteness and agressiveness. 

It is time that America face the fact that teenage girls are hot, and it is perfectly normal for men to have sex with them.

That said, it will be nice to see Swartzenaegar go down, for whatever silly reason appeals to the voters.. or maybe even for his right-wing politics.

Jeez man, what are you trying to do to me?  Enjoy it privately, don't expose it again.  Its like the well-thumbed Playboy hidden in the mattress in your cell - they know it is there, but if you leave it out all the time, they're going to take it away.


Title: Re: The Good Post Gallery
Post by: Mechaman on May 19, 2012, 08:51:03 am
The fact this man, as intellectually dishonest and incompetent as he is, is in the position he is in within the American education system, speaks volumes as to what is going on in the West.  Homosexuality is being pushed by the media, and by the education system, and by the courts, and by many seminaries of many churches.  It doesn’t matter to them if their argument has any merit, or is even honest. They don’t care!  Their consciences have been seared to the point they are themselves deceived by their own deception.[/b]

Well, what do you expect? People interact with homosexuals and don't see all of them as inherently awful human beings and view their sexuality as an unimportant and irrelevant component of their personality. Obviously it's easier to resort to intellectual dishonesty instead of 100% renouncing what they've believed in their entire lives. Instead of jumping through hoops trying to justify homosexuality, they should just call the biblical analysis of homosexuality stupid and leave it at that.   There's really not much more to it, and if God wants to throw all homosexuals into hell for eternity I guess that's His perogative.


Title: Re: The Good Post Gallery
Post by: fezzyfestoon on May 20, 2012, 02:48:30 am
that's what she said


Title: Re: The Good Post Gallery
Post by: A Strange Reflection on May 20, 2012, 07:13:37 am

This belongs in the oh snap mine.


Title: Re: The Good Post Gallery
Post by: fezzyfestoon on May 20, 2012, 10:17:06 am

I thought it had a little more too it than simple snap. :P


Title: Re: The Good Post Gallery
Post by: k-onmmunist on May 22, 2012, 05:52:34 pm
It is astounding to me how liberals can bash this person because he or she chooses not to identify with the radical Occupy protests... this is a person putting himself thru school doing the best he can for himself. He is making every right decision but because he ignores the talking points of a leftist group- you all disregard him

Truly astounding

No-one is disregarding him, we just know he's talking nonsense.

Also, if the belief that social inequality is unjust is now "radical" then I despair for our society...

There is nothing nonsensical about hard work. What we have here is ridicule of those that defy the zeitgeist- not so much about what he does but what he says, the refusal to join in the whinging. Society today is all talk and no action, and we see him lambasted for his words and his action.

You're mixing things up here. We all respect those who work hard. What we don't respect is those who proceed to attention whore and pour hatred on those who are less fortunate, as this whole movement seems to be aiming at. If you have a job, great, you're lucky. Just remember, you're a resource that they can do away with at any point they like.
Yes you are- you are a human resource. That's the way it works...they pay you and they can choose to stop paying you. I've let go many an employee for  malfeasance, negligence, intoxication on the job, criminal records, etc...
maybe people don't want everything to be commodified. maybe certain things like the family have intrinsic value and should be protected by the state or nation/tribe/community. you obviously did not read my previous posts though which already explained my problem obviously had nothing to do with this person's alleged work ethic and everything to do with his apologism for a system that is literally robbing us and destroying anything of lasting value within our culture.

oh and btw i have made it clear before i don't like occupy, if it was actually directed against the criminal banks i would support it but it clearly is not. just like the tea party was/is clearly not about 'fiscal responsibility.'


Title: Re: The Good Post Gallery
Post by: Saturday's Cab Ride Home on May 24, 2012, 11:15:06 am
I don't think it was the vacation itself that cost me the job, but I think getting sick afterwards got me in the long run.  The first commandment of the workplace "Thou shall never get sick."

You need to start taking personal responsibility, for it is given that your trip would most likely lead to an illness – there were several posters on here who even predicted it.  But, despite those known risks, you decided to go to Africa anyway, no matter the risks to your obligations to your employer.

It’s not like you came down with the flu after getting a flu vaccine.  Your company correctly concluded you did not do your due diligence to stay healthy in order to make a good first impression and meet your obligations to your employer.

You do NOT make pleasing your employer a priority in your life.  I would have fired you also.  Since you have a disability (stuttering) to being with, you need to make every effort to be doing it better and cleaner than the other guy.  Instead, you've lost your job in call centers three times. Been warned multiple times by posters, including me, with a history of half-chocked ventures with fly-by-night scam artists and two failed marriage engagements!

Reap-what-you-sow rules of engagement exist for your safety and for that of your team. They're not flexible, nor is the world. Obey them or your history will be written with government food stamps. Is that clear?

Dismissed.


Title: Re: The Good Post Gallery
Post by: Paul Kemp on May 24, 2012, 04:50:08 pm
The Tea Party isn't rigid at all. They constantly complain about the national debt, and then they fully endorse the party that has historically run up the debt and is responsible for most of it at the moment. They complain about getting government encroaching in our lives and then support the party that wants to tell people who they can marry and how they can have sex.


Title: Re: The Good Post Gallery
Post by: Trounce-'em Theresa on May 24, 2012, 07:13:40 pm
Wow, what a heard of sheep.  Obama out for gay marriage and suddenly blacks support gay marriage in droves.  That's just not a healthy way to come to a decision on an issue

A leader and popular figure of any given community having influence over that community's opinions on certain issues is hardly a surprise.


Title: Re: The Good Post Gallery
Post by: Napoleon on May 27, 2012, 12:00:05 am
Why the hell do people think cloning animals is immoral? The other things I can understand why someone might consider them immoral(even if I disagree with them), but I can't wrap my head around the thought process that says animal cloning is immoral. , we can cram chickens in uncomfortable crates and eat them, but we can't clone them?
So you have about ten times as many people who believe medical testing on animals is wrong as believe eating animals is wrong, even though a rational justification is arguably much stronger for the former practice.

A great many moral beliefs don't make logical sense.  Why, for example, is it perfectly legal and even generally considered honorable to euthanize a dying pet, yet a crime and highly controversial (as shown in this poll) to do the same for human beings, even when the humans specifically request that someone help them die--something that animals, for obvious reasons, can never do? 

It should be noted that many, if not most, people don't base their moral beliefs on logic because they largely rely on religion in forming them.  Religion is basically the opposite of logic, one just accepts things on faith without asking if they make sense or not.


Title: Re: The Good Post Gallery
Post by: Napoleon on June 03, 2012, 11:36:22 pm
As someone is liberal NY Democrat, I don't know what some of the complaints about Cuomo are really about.  He has done an excellent job as Governor.  The Pension reform thing was no big deal, and well this isn't Wisconsin in going after teachers making $40-$50K. 

Casing point my current county legislator (Republican Joe Belesi) is a retired Nassau County Cop, rakes in a six figure pension, and got a pay out of $432,000 when he retired from the force (though that was more due to a screwed up county system than state system, put in place by former county exec Republican Tom Gullotta)


Title: Re: The Good Post Gallery
Post by: Napoleon on June 05, 2012, 07:01:53 pm
Still doesn't change the fact that he's just the equivalent of a standard European conservative.

Someone has no clue about New York or Cuomo!

He didn't mention anything about the political spectrum in New York or Cuomo's place in it.

So what? He is wrong.

I care more about aid to homeless children than the right to smoke a joint. He's a socially liberal Chris Christie.
for a lot of people being arrested for marijuana has been a de-facto death sentence. what about all the people that have been sent to prison and subsequently got aids from being raped or were otherwise fatally assaulted by in mates? or all the people whose homes have been wrongly targeted by drug enforcement and subsequently shot by them? or people killed in the crossfire? this isn't just some issue that effects stoners, if it was i wouldn't really give a sh**t.


Title: Re: The Good Post Gallery
Post by: Napoleon on June 05, 2012, 07:08:09 pm
This guy really is a textbook New Democrat, isn't he? Continually sell out left-wing economic principles and get American liberals by being on the forefront on social issues. He's very impressive.
that's a very strange revisionist take on the DLC wing of the party...

Yeah, their main schtick was supporting the death penalty and being "tough on crime."  Bizarre forum caricature of Cuomo is more like the Gary Hart/Jerry Brown "New Democrats."  Of course I fail to see how a minor tax cut while raising rates for high-income individuals in the highest-tax state in the country makes one a "conservative."


Title: Re: The Good Post Gallery
Post by: Trounce-'em Theresa on June 06, 2012, 01:29:30 pm
I agree Simfan on the music. I wish they'd throw out pretty much all of the music written since 1900. Sorry Marty Haugen your music isn't that good. It's just boring and doesn't really show the sort of hunger, for lack of a better word, the situation calls for. I do prefer the English translations of the old Latin hymns to the original Latin for the most part but both can coexist.

My church in Cleveland likes to pull out the occasional Gregorian chant, particularly during Lent, and they tend to be very good songs. There's a reason we kept them around for 800 years. Unfortunately they also mix in some awful contemporary songs. I remember one Sunday they had Attende Domine (one of my favorite religious songs) at Communion and their recessional hymn was Somebody's Knockin' At Your Door. Really? I mean, that one has hand motions. I have to fight back the urge to laugh at the fact that we're actually singing it.

That being said, I've been to Latin Mass before and I'm rather convinced restoring that everywhere's not the answer either.


Title: Re: The Good Post Gallery
Post by: Averroës on June 07, 2012, 03:29:18 pm
I'm just going to throw this thought out here for those of you who are all like "but....BUT!  HE WAS A VALUABLE POSTER AND YOU MEANIES CHASED HIM AWAY!":

I'm not sure if you guys are aware of this, but this is a political discussion forum.  Expecting nothing but sunshine and happiness 24/7 and for people to be civil with each other is ridiculous.  Yes, this forum has a tendency to be a circle jerk of Yes Men at times but that doesn't give one the excuse to act like a little child (which is what baaaaaaaaaawlexus did recently).  I've seen his posts and frankly I don't give the hype here.  Big deal, he posts some polls.  So does like everybody and their grandmother who dwells in the Election Boards (though admittedly, a lot of those people scare me).
I mean seriously, you don't want to be called out on something join the Barney and Friends Forum, don't join the Atlas Forum.  The entire point of this board is for there to be debate (and admittedly, not to be in the semi-circle jerk establishment state it is in now).  So yes, Defendors, you do have a point about establishment scaring people off, but that doesn't change the fact that baaaaawlexus should've had his spine with him when he got on yesterday afternoon or whenever he decided to "wwwwwwwwwaaaaaaah!" quit.
We lost a valuable poster?  I would never consider a loser with millimeter thin skin to be a valuable poster.  Even if they built the Great Wall of China using text.

Now excuse me while I don't delete all of my comments and quit as people respond to this saying "what the hell man?"


Title: Re: The Good Post Gallery
Post by: Scott on June 07, 2012, 04:52:11 pm
I'm just going to throw this thought out here for those of you who are all like "but....BUT!  HE WAS A VALUABLE POSTER AND YOU MEANIES CHASED HIM AWAY!":

I'm not sure if you guys are aware of this, but this is a political discussion forum.  Expecting nothing but sunshine and happiness 24/7 and for people to be civil with each other is ridiculous.  Yes, this forum has a tendency to be a circle jerk of Yes Men at times but that doesn't give one the excuse to act like a little child (which is what baaaaaaaaaawlexus did recently).  I've seen his posts and frankly I don't give the hype here.  Big deal, he posts some polls.  So does like everybody and their grandmother who dwells in the Election Boards (though admittedly, a lot of those people scare me).
I mean seriously, you don't want to be called out on something join the Barney and Friends Forum, don't join the Atlas Forum.  The entire point of this board is for there to be debate (and admittedly, not to be in the semi-circle jerk establishment state it is in now).  So yes, Defendors, you do have a point about establishment scaring people off, but that doesn't change the fact that baaaaawlexus should've had his spine with him when he got on yesterday afternoon or whenever he decided to "wwwwwwwwwaaaaaaah!" quit.
We lost a valuable poster?  I would never consider a loser with millimeter thin skin to be a valuable poster.  Even if they built the Great Wall of China using text.

Now excuse me while I don't delete all of my comments and quit as people respond to this saying "what the hell man?"

Beat me to it.


Title: Re: The Good Post Gallery
Post by: Trounce-'em Theresa on June 07, 2012, 07:09:33 pm
The notion that citizens living far abroad and not intending to return home in the short run nonetheless have an interest in the composition of the national assembly, while those actually affected by it on a daily basis and paying taxes for its upkeep but who are not citizens should not be, is the notion that a country is basically a company and citizenship is basically a share. Next thing you'll be demanding dividends out of the treasury.
And sure enough, Western countries have no problems with the international upper middle class aquiring shares in multiple countries, but are very against third world immigrants doing so.
The notion just screams "I like Representative Government but have an exterminatory hatred of Democracy" (it's not the same thing, you know.) Using single-member constituencies is just rubbing it in.


Title: Re: The Good Post Gallery
Post by: A Strange Reflection on June 09, 2012, 04:02:53 am
Republicans don't even seem to dress up their policies at this point, they just openly state them in the harshest, most cynical way possible. It's like American politics is a grand social experiment to see how far you can take beating up on normal people without reprecussions. So far, the public seems entirely apathetic. (And that is, perhaps, the goal.)


Title: Re: The Good Post Gallery
Post by: oreomilkshake on June 16, 2012, 01:59:19 am
Extremely hawkish Democrat.

That implies Democrats today aren't hawks.

True, it's pretty sad that a majority of Senate Democrats voted for the Iraq war. One of many reasons why I think I'll be abstaining on this year's Senate race.


Title: Re: The Good Post Gallery
Post by: Napoleon on June 16, 2012, 04:04:33 pm
No, Bill Clinton is a leader and a man of integrity.  There should be no comparison.

"A man of integrity"? The guy had an affair while in office and then lied about it under oath and Mitt Romney can't compare to him because of his integrity?  ???

Integrity is a wide term, not limited for private affairs.

Yeah, it means adherence to moral and ethical principles; soundness of moral character; honesty (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/integrity). And this is used to describe... Bill Clinton of all people. Really? Really? ::)

What goes on in a politician's personal life bears no relevance to me.  And besides, Ken Starr's investigation of the scandal was far more unethical and deceptive than anything Clinton's ever said.

It may not matter to you, but it does to most Americans.  This isn't France.  What most foreigners (and quite a few American liberals, apparently) don't understand, is that in America, when you become a public official (especially as a Congressman or as the President of the United States) your life instantly comes under greater scrutiny.  You bear a greater responsibility to uphold your office in every aspect including your private life because we as citizens have higher expectations of you since you are representing us.  How you conduct your private affairs reflect on your public role.  There no line of separation between the two.  When you fall short, the consequences are that much greater.  

No it doesn't.  It only matters to right-wing media pundits who are still trying to turn it into the next Watergate.  It didn't work then, it isn't working now, and public opinion polls indicate that the public has apparently forgiven the incident.  When you're elected to public office, your responsibilities are merely to represent and govern efficiently.  Being a faithful husband is completely independent and irrelevant to those.


Title: Re: The Good Post Gallery
Post by: Napoleon on June 16, 2012, 04:08:20 pm
2004 is quite interesting from a historical perspective.

In many ways it can be considered the last "old school" election.  Traditional media basically controlled the stream of information to the voter during this election cycle; there was no Facebook, no Twitter, no YouTube and very little in terms of online citizen journalism.  In only four short year, 2008 would transform how voters expect to gain their information forever.  In that respect, I think that 2004 will be interesting to study from a historical perspective--as it could be said to the culmination of social and political trends that had been set in the days just after WWII.

And what do you mean that 2004 was “2000 without the closeness”?  Comparing 2004 to its predecessor (while convenient because of their historical proximity) neglects the fact that, of-and-to-itself, 2004 was an extremely close election where the expected outcome was not already known when the polls opened that Tuesday morning--considering that that is the norm in most elections.

Also note that 2004 produced  a starkly polarized electoral map, and the implications of the “blue state/red state” divide that were discussed following this election helped to frame “culture war” of the late 20th/early 21st century in a new, partisan political context.


Title: Re: The Good Post Gallery
Post by: Saturday's Cab Ride Home on June 17, 2012, 12:20:17 am
Here's some advice. It's very good advice and I think you'll thank me for it eventually.

Don't ask for advice here.


Title: Re: The Good Post Gallery
Post by: A Strange Reflection on June 17, 2012, 02:51:34 am
No, Bill Clinton is a leader and a man of integrity.  There should be no comparison.

"A man of integrity"? The guy had an affair while in office and then lied about it under oath and Mitt Romney can't compare to him because of his integrity?  ???

Integrity is a wide term, not limited for private affairs.

Yeah, it means adherence to moral and ethical principles; soundness of moral character; honesty (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/integrity). And this is used to describe... Bill Clinton of all people. Really? Really? ::)

What goes on in a politician's personal life bears no relevance to me.  And besides, Ken Starr's investigation of the scandal was far more unethical and deceptive than anything Clinton's ever said.

It may not matter to you, but it does to most Americans.  This isn't France.  What most foreigners (and quite a few American liberals, apparently) don't understand, is that in America, when you become a public official (especially as a Congressman or as the President of the United States) your life instantly comes under greater scrutiny.  You bear a greater responsibility to uphold your office in every aspect including your private life because we as citizens have higher expectations of you since you are representing us.  How you conduct your private affairs reflect on your public role.  There no line of separation between the two.  When you fall short, the consequences are that much greater.  

No it doesn't.  It only matters to right-wing media pundits who are still trying to turn it into the next Watergate.  It didn't work then, it isn't working now, and public opinion polls indicate that the public has apparently forgiven the incident.  When you're elected to public office, your responsibilities are merely to represent and govern efficiently.  Being a faithful husband is completely independent and irrelevant to those.

This x10000


Title: Re: The Good Post Gallery
Post by: Gustaf on June 17, 2012, 04:32:38 am
No, Bill Clinton is a leader and a man of integrity.  There should be no comparison.

"A man of integrity"? The guy had an affair while in office and then lied about it under oath and Mitt Romney can't compare to him because of his integrity?  ???

Integrity is a wide term, not limited for private affairs.

Yeah, it means adherence to moral and ethical principles; soundness of moral character; honesty (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/integrity). And this is used to describe... Bill Clinton of all people. Really? Really? ::)

What goes on in a politician's personal life bears no relevance to me.  And besides, Ken Starr's investigation of the scandal was far more unethical and deceptive than anything Clinton's ever said.

It may not matter to you, but it does to most Americans.  This isn't France.  What most foreigners (and quite a few American liberals, apparently) don't understand, is that in America, when you become a public official (especially as a Congressman or as the President of the United States) your life instantly comes under greater scrutiny.  You bear a greater responsibility to uphold your office in every aspect including your private life because we as citizens have higher expectations of you since you are representing us.  How you conduct your private affairs reflect on your public role.  There no line of separation between the two.  When you fall short, the consequences are that much greater.  

No it doesn't.  It only matters to right-wing media pundits who are still trying to turn it into the next Watergate.  It didn't work then, it isn't working now, and public opinion polls indicate that the public has apparently forgiven the incident.  When you're elected to public office, your responsibilities are merely to represent and govern efficiently.  Being a faithful husband is completely independent and irrelevant to those.

This x10000

It's a bit sad that that post made it into here, since it clearly suffered from considerable confusion.


Title: Re: The Good Post Gallery
Post by: tpfkaw on June 17, 2012, 08:47:18 am
It's a bit sad that that post made it into here, since it clearly suffered from considerable confusion.

Well as if the Democrats wouldn't do exactly the same thing (and rightly so) if Bush I or Reagan were the one caught getting it on with the secretary and then lying under oath about it.


Title: Re: The Good Post Gallery
Post by: Gustaf on June 17, 2012, 09:02:03 am
It's a bit sad that that post made it into here, since it clearly suffered from considerable confusion.

Well as if the Democrats wouldn't do exactly the same thing (and rightly so) if Bush I or Reagan were the one caught getting it on with the secretary and then lying under oath about it.

My point was more that none of that gives Clinton more integrity. Writing several posts of that length without even addressing the actual issue hardly qualifies as exceptionally good in my book. Then again, this thread is about as stupid as the Deluge - it seems to serve just as a way of expressing agreement outside of the actual discussion thread.


Title: Re: The Good Post Gallery
Post by: A Strange Reflection on June 17, 2012, 11:14:15 am
One would think that ND (and PASOK) would be the arsonists in the image. Seeing as the building is clearly burning already.


Title: Re: The Good Post Gallery
Post by: Franzl on June 17, 2012, 11:17:43 am
One would think that ND (and PASOK) would be the arsonists in the image. Seeing as the building is clearly burning already.

Then SYRIZA are the ones hoping to extinguish the fire with gasoline ;)


Title: Re: The Good Post Gallery
Post by: minionofmidas - supplemental forum account on June 17, 2012, 11:20:25 am
One would think that ND (and PASOK) would be the arsonists in the image. Seeing as the building is clearly burning already.

Then SYRIZA are the ones hoping to extinguish the fire with gasoline ;)
No, by torching the palace across the road as well. ;)


Title: Re: The Good Post Gallery
Post by: Napoleon on June 17, 2012, 04:33:29 pm
While a forum where a good 30% of the members have never so much as kissed a girl and need The Professor to give them dating tips might not be the obvious place to look for help on this, but Lief's advice is more or less the way to go, yeah.

Remember, if you do follow Lief's advice and dump your current girlfriend, there'll be some people who say it's wrong, or even cowardly to do so and then avoid confrontation. That's not true at all - there's nothing wrong with running away from your problems as long as they don't catch up to you. ;)

PS: It's not a lie if you believe it.

(http://i.ytimg.com/vi/vn_PSJsl0LQ/0.jpg)




Title: Re: The Good Post Gallery
Post by: Јas on June 19, 2012, 11:03:54 am
I suppose it's also possible that what's going on isn't some morality fable.


Title: Re: The Good Post Gallery
Post by: opebo on June 19, 2012, 02:47:50 pm
(http://i.imgur.com/EVX1X.gif)


Title: Re: The Good Post Gallery
Post by: Grumpy Santa on June 19, 2012, 03:01:06 pm
I'm surprised Tender Branson didn't get whacked with some death points for that......prudish environment we are in......


Title: Re: The Good Post Gallery
Post by: opebo on June 19, 2012, 03:10:34 pm
I'm surprised Tender Branson didn't get whacked with some death points for that......prudish environment we are in......

Perhaps I should delete my accolades, but not before saving that link!  Wow!


Title: Re: The Good Post Gallery
Post by: Scott on June 19, 2012, 10:54:26 pm
Ron Paul's support of civilian massacres is disgusting.

That's an extremely small sided view, realizing that America shouldn't involve itself in every humanitarian/strategic conflict or civil war doesn't mean you advocate civilian massacres. If anything it just signals that you understand countries and their people should be able to handle their own affairs without some outside power implementing a "Non oppressive" pro American government.

Your post just reeks of "America needs to be the police of the world" because other countries can't be left to handle their own affairs.


Title: Re: The Good Post Gallery
Post by: Trounce-'em Theresa on June 21, 2012, 07:31:44 pm
This is the attitude at my university as well. Almost everyone taking a science/math/commerce/engineering degree treats anyone in the liberal arts as a second-class student. I would just, for once, like people to admit that the different fields are different, not that any one area of study is better than another. (Although in terms of creating a well-rounded individual, I almost think the liberal arts is better--you're encouraged to focus on developing ideas and finding connections, whereas some of these other programs are exceptionally theoretical and numbers-based.)

I honestly think the problem has some big roots in frosh week programming. Your introduction to the university is basically comprised of "we are segregated" or "engineers have a crazy frosh week because they work harder." Beyond frosh week, I understand that the very nature of the programs makes it difficult for the faculties to interact... but I think more could be done to foster a united sense of school spirit. As it stands right now, my school might as well be in a perpetual civil war.


Title: Re: The Good Post Gallery
Post by: tmthforu94 on June 27, 2012, 12:40:17 am
A really nice post by a friend, Winfield:

The Republicans practically "owned" the Presidency in the 1920s, and look how that worked out.

So, to say the Democrats have a lock on the Presidency makes no sense.  To say any party has a lock on the Presidency makes no sense.

History changes, sometimes on a dime, sometimes as the culmination of a series of great events.

At this point in time, yes, the Democrats have an advantage, but certainly not a lock.  The campaign, and the course of events, will determine the outcome of this election.
[/quote


Title: Re: The Good Post Gallery
Post by: Napoleon on June 28, 2012, 04:32:28 pm
What krazen is to the left wing- there are 5 liberals on this board who are the same to us

Is Krazen is to the right-wing what certain liberals are to the left-wing (Is he the Beck or Maher of his respective wing; is he the person who you really want to say "Okay, that's nice, now go draw on your chalkboard so we can argue rationally")? Or is he just of the sort who's tolerated (probably like a few of those liberals) because he annoys the rightists/leftists?

Hell, I'd even say Krazen is more moderate and cvil then many of his left wing counterparts on this forum.

This is the guy who stopped just short of calling a member of Congress insane for being gay and constantly uses the phrase 'of course' like some sort of talismanic charm to repel his own repressed sense of humility.

Of course, I consider the probability that you characterized his statement accurately at about 0.1%. Why don't you share the alleged quote?

The entirety of his argument and demeanor in the thread for the most recent Rasmussen poll on the Wisconsin Senate race. You can find it where you'd expect to find threads on that. I think it's really sweet that you're defending your special friend and all but I haven't slept in a calendar day and I'm not going to go hunting for the link for your benefit.

What krazen is to the left wing- there are 5 liberals on this board who are the same to us

After most elections there are folks whom are happy if the Democrat wins, and there are folks whom are happy when the Republican wins. I would put Krazen1211 strongly in the second camp, and numerous posters here in the first camp. Surely, I strongly suspect that he took as much pleasure in the victory of Scott Walker as I did. That said, I have not noted him as being a particularly strong conservative ideologue. There seems to be a strong streak of prejuidice in this forum that equates being Republican with being "right-wing" and "extremist."

You haven't noticed him being a 'particularly strong conservative ideologue' for the same reason that I don't notice people being 'big into early modern Japanese literature'.

All this being said, it's difficult to argue for banning the guy under the terms of service. It just ought to be equally difficult to actually defend the content of what he posts, at least without extreme shame.


Title: Re: The Good Post Gallery
Post by: Napoleon on June 28, 2012, 09:23:46 pm
Excuse me for interjecting. I attend a Catholic school, and throughout middle school and early high school, the ideas of evolution were clearly explained and whatnot. Hell, they were probably accepted as fact or close to it by the teaching, and probably as fact by the teachers. And that was in a Catholic school. The job of a science class is to teach theories as theories, not to get into a huge debate. The fact that almost no one in my school today believes in the religion is much more the fault of bad religion teachers than anything else. Point is, you want religion, you send your kid home and talk to them at the dinner table, or you send them to a religious school. Evolution is the dominating scientific theory on the creation of life and should be taught as such.


Title: Re: The Good Post Gallery
Post by: Scott on July 02, 2012, 04:16:32 pm
Paul continues to be an asinine ideologue.

The idea letting Assad's regime stand would be better for Syrians is ridiculous and embarrassing to anyone who suggests it.

The idea is that it's better for America if Americans do not die overseas.

The idea is that it's better for America, and the world, to not have innocent people be slaughtered by a dictator. Your phrase is idiotic. It's like suggesting that had we known about the Holocaust we shouldn't have intervened because "Americans might die". Don't tell me that was different. Is there some number of people killed at which point some switch turns on and an intervention becomes acceptable? Nonsense. We have a moral obligation as a nation with the means to help those in Syria to help them. Every nation with the means to do so does. It's simple human decency.

You can save your "moral obligation" for when we're running surpluses, like during the 90's and everyone was screaming that Clinton should have helped Rwanda. The simple fact of the matter is, we can't afford to continue investing in military operations that don't actually enhance our national security. 

How would we finance action in Syria? Would we continue to to build on our trillion dollar budget deficits, and print more money to sustain those deficits? It doesn't matter whether it's Syria, Somalia or Pakistan , you can only use budgetary tricks for so long, to maintain foreign investments but eventually you can do it no more.  Johnson tried to use the same budgetary tricks to finance the War on poverty and the Vietnam war at the same time, he ran huge deficits and printed billions of dollars , because to maintain a war and not massively raise taxes you have to run deficits; once you raise taxes opposition for a war increases, every time. What did he do? He started the rapid printing of money, that would continue well into the 70's. The Hungarians tried the same budgetary tricks to finance world war 2 and the resulting hyperinflation caused the collapse of their currency all together.

There's always gonna be another if we intervene in Syria, I know because there was always another after Uganda, Rwanda, Bosnia, Somalia, Germany ext , there will always be another call for the Us to intervene. Unfortunately until we have a budget that's decreases our long term debt and our budget deficits any more intervention will just inch us closer to a complete financial collapse.

Why did France signal a complete withdraw from the middle east? Because they can't afford it.
Why can't America ever understand that you have to be fiscally responsible before you involve yourself in the affairs of of other countries.

You're not "disgusting", for realizing something that's obvious by just looking at the current state of the US economy.

Actually if it means people will wake up and realize that our current interventionist foreign policy isn't sustainable fiscally then I'd gladly be labeled "Disgusting" right besides the Ron Paul's/Gary Johnson and the rest of the anti interventionist in this country.


Title: Re: The Good Post Gallery
Post by: Tetro Kornbluth on July 06, 2012, 08:31:39 am
I appreciate Nathan's input, and would like to say that I wasn't alleging that the "new" (a problematic concept by itself, as it is in a way the result of a strong trend that can be traced back to 1890 at least) sexuality model is superior to others.  Neither, for that matter, was Foucault, whom I was drawing on, who disagreed with the modern sexual model in two major ways:

A. people tend to fool themselves into viewing sexual expression as an act of rebellion and liberation when they are, in fact, playing into the "rebellion" dialectic and actually further ensnaring themselves.  By thinking of frank discussion of sex as a rebellion, they actually reinforce its status as a taboo.  By transgressively "breaking the taboo" they are in fact reinvigorating its existence. 

B.  By obsessively classifying people based on their sexual tastes, it transforms that into an immutable part of someone's identity.  The label "homosexual" becomes an inescapable prison in a way the Medieval sodomite never was: "sodomy" is an act one does, and one could (and did) abandon the label by ceasing the act.  A "homosexual" isn't defined by what he or she does, but by what he or she is, and it limits their courses of action.  Similarly for a heterosexual, the sheer act of definition based on sexual tastes ends up forcing one into a limitation of attraction to  50% of the population.  This concept, that one should only be attracted to one of the two sexes, was unknown in the Greek world, and Foucault (and, frankly, I) think that the latter attitude is preferable to the modern liberal attitude of "It's OK to be gay/whatever."  Gay rights as it was framed ends up leading to imprisoning people with a label that reduces them to only having access to lovers of one sex, whether the same or the opposite, and actually increased boundaries between the two: "gay" and "straight" become non-overlapping categories.  It's the reason why Foucault himself never considered himself gay and fiercely opposed the word in general, despite his love of many men.



Getting to Nathan's point, I agree that shame does, in fact, have a real place in sexual discourse, and one that has too often been denigrated by people that worship the discourse of sexual liberation.    Sexuality, when it becomes too loud or too boisterous, can become an actively harmful habit.  How many people dismissed the allegations against Dominique Strauss-Khan by saying things along the lines of "that's just how the French are, they have more sophisticated notions of sexuality" etc.?  People did, in fact, try to defend alleged rape (that particular case, of course, didn't happen the way originally portrayed, but remember that this is before we knew that) as somehow akin to Mitterand's affairs and whatnot.  People defend the systematic misogyny prevalent in, say, the attitudes of a Berlusconi as an example of virile womanizing, then condemn the same tawdry conduct in Egypt.

My main point is that one of the biggest problems regarding sexual discourse is the liberation trap.  People who think that they are flouting a societal taboo by talking about sex and do so for the racy thrill of transgression are themselves constructing said taboo every second.  The attempts to "shock" and declare proud opposition to cultural taboos are like a fly in a spiderweb: by struggling, you only get yourself more and more trapped.  There is no such thing as "liberation," sexual or otherwise.  This is by far the most valuable lesson in Foucault, IMO, and one of the reasons he ended up becoming such an enthusiastic supporter of Ayatollah Khomeini in the end...so many people dismiss that chapter in his life as out of place with his message when it really is the culmination of his message.  Stop struggling against "repressive" discourse and settle down and the cessation of struggle will help free you.

Granted, I wouldn't advise going that far.  :P


Title: Re: The Good Post Gallery
Post by: Oakvale on July 06, 2012, 06:32:32 pm
Marokai's post in that driving thread reminded me to find this and post it here.

The tangent Vosem is taking this thread on is the perfect example of what is wrong with the Republican Party right now. 

I have no problem with people taking conservative stances on issues, but recently it appears conservatism is supposed to be some sort of lifestyle where you take conservative stances on everything.  They invent a "conservative side" to every fact whose author might have voted Democrat at one point in his life.

There is no reason to debate Vosem on the "issue" of the morality of caps on campaign fundraising because it is not an issue.  There is no right or wrong side.  There is the fact that the campaign fundraising system is broken due to corporate spending and SuperPAC influence.  There is no opposite side. 

On campaign financing, like on all the subjects, the Republican vs. Democratic debate should be on how best to fix these loopholes. 

But there are no "hows" to compare.  The problem with the Republican Party is that they've turned politics into a series of Yes or No questions.  There's no option A or option B.   That's where things went south for me in my ability to support the party.   

On Obamacare, the debate was never "which plan is best suited to give our populous universal health care coverage?"  The debate was "do you believe the populous has a right to universal health care coverage?" That's a ridiculous question; a question where I'm forced to say yes because no is such a stupid response and therefore support the Democrats not because I believe in their plan but because it's the only plan.

Yeah, that's my moderate rant.


Title: Re: The Good Post Gallery
Post by: A Strange Reflection on July 06, 2012, 06:44:20 pm
I'm pretty sure this has already been posted here (and very deservedly so, I must add).


Title: Re: The Good Post Gallery
Post by: GM R2D2 on July 06, 2012, 07:19:52 pm
Wow that's the first time I've ever really seen King talk about his politics.


Title: Re: The Good Post Gallery
Post by: Scott on July 07, 2012, 07:57:31 pm
The quality of its political leaders is not something you can separate from the appreciation of a country.

Perhaps. I like to believe if more of my fellow countrymen were better informed, or just cared enough to pay a little more attention, they'd be eager to vote for people who'd fix things.

As someone who studied in the US... and was, honestly, horrified by how myopic so many Americans were, I think a broader perspective is definitely needed.

A friend of mine who's a teacher in IL, is really disturbed by how they teach the American Revolution as purely, democracy vs tyranny... rather than be honest, that it was actually incredibly complex and doesn't go into the background as to why Britain did what it did etc etc...

America is a great country, full of really good people, the story about American social mobility is increasingly a myth, America is as strata-fied as any European or Western Country for that matter. I think what might irritate people abroad is the idea that the US is the pinnacle of democracy... last time I checked... most western countries have free and fair elections... freedom of the press etc etc...

Just because you're flawed, as all countries are in their own ways, doesn't mean you aren't great... you're just not the best at everything... some countries do do things better than you... but you do other things better than them... it's not a contest.




Title: Re: The Good Post Gallery
Post by: Marokai Backbeat on July 07, 2012, 11:52:22 pm
I'm pretty sure this has already been posted here (and very deservedly so, I must add).

It is certainly one of the best summations of the American Right at this point in time, and one of the biggest reasons our political system is hopelessly f***ed.


Title: Re: The Good Post Gallery
Post by: Solidarity Forever on July 08, 2012, 03:47:03 pm
[inks] [inks] [inks] [inks] [inks]
[inks] [inks] [inks] [inks] [inks] [inks] [inks]
[inks] [inks] [inks] you guys.


Title: Re: The Good Post Gallery
Post by: opebo on July 09, 2012, 03:59:42 pm
A spanking for WhyteRian from our worthy King:

Making irresponsible sub-prime loans was hugely profitable for companies.

You're right, but think about this:  In a free market, doesn't this sound crazy?

"Making irresponsible sub-prime loans was hugely profitable for companies."

We all know the REASON why the "irresponsible sub-prime loans were HUGELY PROFITABLE", but it seems we can't face it:  The irresponsible government guarantees.

Actually, no, government guarantees had absolutely nothing to do with the major profit system of the subprime market.  It was entirely a private enterprise.   There's a huge public misconception about it because it's made out to be incredibly complicated, but really it's not.  It's, in effect, a life insurance scam.  And I hope you read this, WhyteRain.

First off, you start off with the subprime lenders, guys like Countrywide.  Contrary to popular belief, they really aren't players here.  They are manufacturers for the real players: investment banks and insurance companies, or best yet investment/insurance companies.

So, let's say you're Countrywide and you manufacture $750 million in terrible sh**tty loans.  You know that these loans are highly likely to fail.  In a normal, regulated loan system this would be a path to bankruptcy.  $750 million in loans and likely only $50 million worth of them will end up paying them back.  How does one profit here?  Simple, they sell the debt.  

In comes our first player, the investment bank.  Countrywide has $750 mil in terrible loans and needs to find some way to make a profit and so they go to Goldman Sachs and say, hey, we will sell you this $750 million in loans for $1 billion.  Goldman says yes and Countrywide profits $250 mil for making terrible loans.  But why Goldman Sachs buy these?  In a normal, government regulated loan system, Goldman would end up losing even more money than Countrywide, with $950 million in losses.  But this isn't a normal system, because in comes the next player.

The brains behind the operation is the second player, the investment/insurance bank--most famously played by AIG.   They know Goldman is running around with $1 billion in toxic assets that they bought from Countrywide and like any good insurance company, they know that all cars will crash, all people will die, and all homes will burn down eventually; and there's money to be made in the meantime.  AIG comes to Goldman with proposal: for a premium of $10 million per month, AIG will give Goldman a $2 billion insurance policy on those assets, if they were to fail.  In normal, regulated government system, this offer would be illegal.   There literally was a line in our US code that prevented this deal in the books until 1998, Gramm–Leach–Bliley Act allowed insurers and bankers to do business with each other.

The hugely profitable, totally irresponsible, entirely free market, system was now place.  AIG would profit $15 million a month (when combined with other similar deals billions a month) until an asset failed.  Goldman would sit and wait HOPING for loans to default so that way they could make the $1 billion profit of the insurance payout, which trumped any profits off mortgage interest.  At the same time, they would be ORDERING Countrywide to give out more bad loans for them to buy, hoping that they would default faster and they could collect AIG's money.  Everybody sees profit.

AIG would hope that they wouldn't default soon, or better yet, like life insurance systems, the annual profit from the premiums would outweigh the payout of a few $2 billion plans here and there.   The problem was in the housing bubble, the defaults all happened at one time: 2008.  AIG ended up owing Goldman Sachs some $150 billion in the end and Goldman wasn't the only insurer they worked with during this time.  That is why Goldman famous posted profits during the financial collapse.  They were the company all that bailout money was owed.  

So you see, it was the free market that created this profit motive.  In fact, the free market is far more efficient in these matters of risky bad business than the government, as violent economic swings are always hugely profitable.


Title: Re: The Good Post Gallery
Post by: GM R2D2 on July 09, 2012, 05:23:20 pm
[inks] [inks] [inks] [inks] [inks]
[inks] [inks] [inks] [inks] [inks] [inks] [inks]
[inks] [inks] [inks] you guys.

Bless your soul.


Title: Re: The Good Post Gallery
Post by: Frodo on July 11, 2012, 07:57:25 pm
An old post from a poster who has moved on to bigger and better things in life, but worth the reading:

If we wanted to be a serious religion we would let people know if you join another religion you go to hell and start excommunicating people for abortions and stuff

YEAH, that's a great idea!  Why don't you guys just go back to the Middle Ages, when you brutally tortured anyone who so much as tried to think for himself? 

I'm sure that will really boost the Church's worldwide membership.

That's my point exactly, a church should be about practicing what you believe.  It's not politics, you should not be pandering to attract new members.  So in my opinion that is a great idea.

Join a Protestant Church then. I don't believe the Catholic Church has ever been truely about following a creed. It has been for most of its existance a grouping of people with quite diverse theological views that have come together under one roof, especially since the Renaissance and subsequent liberalizing of both the entire Western world and of the Church itself. While you might not consider this completely holy, or right in the sense of papal superiority and the superiority of cannon law, it is the truth. Even with Church organizations you have a wide variation between groups like the Jesuits and Opus Dei or the Franciscans. I doubt that you would not consider any of these groups not Catholic but they have widely varying beliefs about the mission of the Church and the goals of spreading the gospel.

The thing is the Catholic Church isn't pandering to anyone it has 1 billion people that it considers its members, that's one sixth of the world's population. If you try to create a Church that is as conservative or "theologically pure" as your fundamentalist or conservative Protestant sects then you have a major problem since I doubt since I doubt that Kwando Akembe in Nigeria is going to care about the same issues as an upper class conservative Catholic in New Jersey or a liberal Catholic in the Netherlands.

Also you have to consider that in many ways in many countries Catholicism has gone beyond just being a religious entity but has become a part of the culture in much the same way as Judaism connects the world's Jewish population both spiritually and as a cultural entity.

That's just my opinion I don't really think that you could start excommunicating people for abortion or not going to Church or whatever and unless you want to see all that great 19th century anti-Catholicism come back the Church shouldn't destroy the good relations it has forged with it's Protestant bretheren.



Title: Re: The Good Post Gallery
Post by: © tweed on July 11, 2012, 07:58:05 pm
An old post from a poster who has moved on to bigger and better things in life

is this known, or just a kind cliche?


Title: Re: The Good Post Gallery
Post by: © tweed on July 11, 2012, 08:00:33 pm
An old post from a poster who has moved on to bigger and better things in life

is this known, or just a kind cliche?

Well clearly Colin Wixted has found better things to do with his life than post on this forum.  

which assumes anyone who leaves voluntarily does so because they are doing better things; which begs the question, what is the fundamental defect of those who continue to post?


Title: Re: The Good Post Gallery
Post by: Saturday's Cab Ride Home on July 12, 2012, 12:08:39 am
There's really no point in picking on DWTL now, especially for things he said five years ago, but I did find the "we would let people know if you join another religion you go to hell" bit quite amusing since that's not even Catholic teaching (even if the statement is taken literally and not defining "another religion" as "another Christian denomination" which is what I think he meant.)


Title: Re: The Good Post Gallery
Post by: opebo on July 12, 2012, 07:18:14 am
An old post from a poster who has moved on to bigger and better things in life

is this known, or just a kind cliche?

Well clearly Colin Wixted has found better things to do with his life than post on this forum.  

which assumes anyone who leaves voluntarily does so because they are doing better things; which begs the question, what is the fundamental defect of those who continue to post?

In point of fact continued posting is a good sign - of reasonable prosperity (internet access, a computer, enough food and drink to be cognizant) and health (the poster has not died or become to ill to post).  Nowadays most people who cease posting can be assumed to have fallen into poverty, living under a bridge, or to have died due to aneurism or other troubles.


Title: Re: The Good Post Gallery
Post by: RI on July 12, 2012, 08:35:57 pm
There's really no point in picking on DWTL now, especially for things he said five years ago, but I did find the "we would let people know if you join another religion you go to hell" bit quite amusing since that's not even Catholic teaching (even if the statement is taken literally and not defining "another religion" as "another Christian denomination" which is what I think he meant.)

Yeah, Catholics have a pretty open door policy on heaven. You have to really go out of your way to become "hellbound" unlike some (though certainly not all) Protestant churches.


Title: Re: The Good Post Gallery
Post by: Brittain33 on July 15, 2012, 08:19:25 am
Yes, Obama's attacks on Romney's record at Bain are unfair. No, the fact that a company Bain Capital invested in outsourced jobs isn't especially important.

But none of this would hold water as much if Mitt Romney weren't basing his entire campaign for president on the idea that he "knows how to create jobs" - something which sounds even weirder when GOP doctrine suggests government can't create jobs.

It's worth remembering that the bulk of Mitt Romney's career was spent not as a private equity partner, but as a management consultant. It's being overly generous to place management consulting in the rough-and-tumble part of the business world. Management consultants are people who are paid a fee to give advice to companies; in that sense, it's really more like being a doctor or a lawyer than being an entrepreneur or a manager.

Romney's private equity record likewise says nothing about his ability to create jobs. It says much about his ability to generate profits. But anyone with a decent understanding of management knows that one of the quickest ways to increase a firm's profits is to eliminate jobs. No one starts a business to create jobs; they start a business to generate a return on their investment. Any jobs created are incidental. There shouldn't be anything wrong with this; I don't think "You make too much money" is a very salient insult. Liberals don't understand that. But conservatives need to dispense with the starry-eyed vision of people who sit in offices and say "Let's see how many jobs I can create today."

Mitt Romney was a good management consultant and a good private equity investor. But he hasn't done a good job of explaining how any of that entails he will be a good president. If anything, his management consulting experience would seem like a more logical jumping off point - many of the organizational problems companies experience have analogues in government agencies. Someone who knows how to make a major corporation run more efficiently could probably do the same for a Cabinet-level agency. But there will probably be layoffs involved.


Title: Re: The Good Post Gallery
Post by: Joe Republic on July 20, 2012, 09:06:08 pm
cc: Sulfur Mine

Stay classy gun control nuts.

This kind of sentiment is the kind of the thing that could easily go in the things that are f'd up about the US thread. In any other (supposedly) civilized country in the world a tragedy like this might actually lead people to reexamine their bizarre gun laws - or lack thereof. When a maniac massacred sixteen people in Dunblane in 1996, there was a near-unanimous consensus that the UK needed to tighten its gun control - and they did, with universal public support.

Only in America is the reaction to things like this a horrified panic at the very idea that there might have to be the slightest scrap of extra regulation on guns, because, lest we forget, it's a God-given right to allow lunatics to own the kind of tools that let them murder people with wild abandon.

I can't believe you have the gall to accuse people of "politicizing" this - as if this doesn't inherently have political ramifications and, more to the point, as if your very post wasn't a sleazy and political attack on those of us who think the sheer amount of violent firearms massacres in the United States might - just might - warrant a re-examination of the law.

The same goes for Sanchez and Sanders - spare us the phony outrage. Please. The idea that this incident can be shrugged off as "huh, it was just some nut, what you gonna do?" as if it's merely a sad but predictable and even acceptable event in a healthy society. This isn't normal.


Title: Re: The Good Post Gallery
Post by: Mechaman on July 21, 2012, 01:31:17 pm
I believe people need to take responsibility for themselves. But I also believe some people are more susceptible to becoming overweight than others.

It always irritates me when thin people, who've never been overweight in their lives, suggest people who are overweight are irresponsible or disgusting because of what they've done to themselves. It may be their own fault that they're like that, but these thin people have no idea what it's like. They have no idea how challenging it is or what it's like to feel so dejected.

I think one of the things that actually bothers me the most in his world is when "fit people" tell "fat" people to "get themselves in shape" like it's just some switch they can flick on. As if to say "it's easy for me, so it should be easy for you, you gross pig."


Title: Re: The Good Post Gallery
Post by: Vote UKIP! on July 21, 2012, 06:06:10 pm
On myself.

Ronald Reagan in Jimmy Carters body ;)


Title: Re: The Good Post Gallery
Post by: Redalgo on July 27, 2012, 07:08:38 pm
We are talking about money multipliers, yes?  Then of course they should, basic economics

Keep in mind your 'basic economics' is a sham and a fraud.

Not really; in fact I would argue your economic philosophy is, though I would argue that in the nicest possible way.

I am happy with this fraud, but it should be entirely State-controlled.

History has taught us that state-controlled economies have always performed poorly compared to even sort-of free markets.


Title: Re: The Good Post Gallery
Post by: GM R2D2 on July 27, 2012, 10:14:49 pm
:)


Title: Re: The Good Post Gallery
Post by: Alcon on July 28, 2012, 12:33:36 am
I want to say that I'm happy how well this thread has going.  I especially enjoy the less political posts here.  I wish it was more-used for those long-ass, cool informational posts that tend to get buried in threads :P


Title: Re: The Good Post Gallery
Post by: A Strange Reflection on July 28, 2012, 02:29:52 pm
Otherwise he was a retarded but otherwise unremarkable conservatroll quite similar to all other similar morons of the type we've had.

I wonder if I'm one of the 'conservatrolls' you speak of?

I'm not Hash - although that kind of post is one of the reasons I love Hash! - but I wouldn't classify you as a troll, but I do see your avatar, think muon's posted, and get disappointed. That's not really a judgement of you so much as an acknowledgement that muon's a terrific contributor.

This thread's a good a place as any to give my unsolicited opinion - I think you're pretty clearly sincere in your beliefs, but your youth - you're 13/14, right? - becomes fairly apparent sometimes, especially when you try and argue with someone like Al about the NHS. The beliefs you're sincere about are also utterly ridiculous and reprehensible, but, again, you're 14 (?). I hope this doesn't sound condescending, although it clearly is, but you'll grow out of them. Grown adults - at least those who have the self-awareness and intelligence to post on a forum discussing their beliefs - don't go around thinking that corporations being able to spend billions upon billions to control the political process is the definition of freedom ((http://sae.tweek.us/static/images/emoticons/emot-911.gif)) or that a society where poor people can't afford to get healthcare and thus have shorter and worse lives is perfectly okay.

Those aren't reasonable positions to hold, and you can't argue for them - especially the latter, which is frankly disgusting, since you're literally saying that you'd prefer rich people to live more than the poor  - without starting from such bizarre moral assumptions that debating anyone at all would be futile.


Title: Re: The Good Post Gallery
Post by: Lief 🐋 on July 28, 2012, 02:32:44 pm
Oakvale is way too good of a poster.


Title: Re: The Good Post Gallery
Post by: opebo on July 28, 2012, 05:49:45 pm
Chick-fil-A is a grease soaked sodium fest that is contributing to our health care crisis.  How amazing that reactionaries ignore a problem that is killing the majority of Americans (being overweight or obese) but have the time to hate on a tiny minority of the population.  If the CEO of Chick-fil-A wasn't a death merchant his comments would only be moderately disgusting.  Considering the methods he uses to line his pockets, him and the rest of the delusional right need to shut the f--- up.


Title: Re: The Good Post Gallery
Post by: Come grasp the mighty avatar of our admin on July 29, 2012, 06:49:05 pm
This is an outstanding post:

Oh and let me bold that for effect:

WhyteRain is an idiot.



Title: Re: The Good Post Gallery
Post by: minionofmidas - supplemental forum account on July 30, 2012, 02:55:08 pm
OMG!! Keystone Phil looks really hot - like all Italian folks. I wish he was gay.
But Reaganfan, Swedish cheese, Bacon King, Senator Scott and especially Joe Republic are a bit of all right. I wouldn't mind meeting them.


Title: Re: The Good Post Gallery
Post by: Napoleon on August 02, 2012, 10:12:09 am
My apologies for the late response - I didn't initially see the post where you posed the question.

It is possible that we have reached the "most perfect" arrangement possible, yes, but it is closely-held conviction of mine that the world is in a state of constant change and, likewise, cultures and civilizations are never holding still, either. I believe the state and its policies must adapt to these changes to continue being optimally useful to the public, and it is because of these stances that I look down somewhat on the Left in Western civilization. Many of its goals, principles, and methods almost fully mirror those of people who lived and dreamed over seventy years ago.

Plans need to be reevaluated for effectiveness and recalibrated to suit the environs we all are thrust into together as a people. There is no hope of eternally preserving old ways, or even tweaking the current order in perpetuity so as to cope with other transformations in society. Just as it is a challenge today to get Americans to realize our constitution should be changing with the times rather than preserved and worshiped like some kind of a holy relic, in some other places it is just as much of a challenge to get socialists to realize that nationalization, unionism, neo-corporatism, and top-down expansion of the public sector - given past experiences - may not be the best of ways to go.

Then again, this is all relative to ones tastes in values, goals, and in traits of culture. For me, the overarching goal in politics to is to establish and then defend an order in which people are equally granted unconditional love, compassion, and privileges that will help them determine through their own efforts - to the greatest extent feasibly possible - how their lives will unfold, preferably to the ends of maximizing the number of folk who are generally satisfied with life while minimizing the number who generally feel miserable.

So when I look at the Nordic model, for instance, I wonder how we may enjoy generous economic benefits without those benefits being widely abused at the taxpayers’ expense, or figure out how we can have the labor-business teamwork fostered by neo-corporatism while still managing to institutionalize our vibrant individualism and competitive spirit of ingenuity in the realm of business. Can we have cradle-to-grave welfare sans a sprawling maze of costly, government bureaucracy? Can we discover a set of roles for the state that make the people feel free in their daily lives but still empower government to the ends of helping us as needed (but still simply getting out of our way when it isn’t) along the way?

I think so.

In broader terms, the Left is by its very nature concerned with finding problems with the existing order and wanting to tinker with ideas to make things run a bit better. It is about innovation, taking risks, and learning from mistakes to adjust ones plans and do better in the future. So although in theory there comes a point at which the government has done all that it can, leaving the rest is all up to private interests, in practice what I see is a game of sorts with no established time for an end. There are always more moves to make, more strategies to experiment with, and experiences to gain. An immense, unexplored frontier of “what if” lies in wait out there. Rather than sticking with what feels safe and familiar, folks on the Left (e.g. me) like to rush out there with confidence and a sense of wonder to explore.

The changes sought are not necessary, per se. They are simply desired out of hunger for further development - for cultural evolution toward happier, more fulfilling ways of life. Even if we someday shape public policy to as near a state of perfection as is possible in the context of our people’s values and interests, it would be a real shame if they were to give up on the pursuit of new discoveries. Hypothetically, even if all of my positions in politics were to eventually become codified into law, I would still be disappointed if no adversarial political factions soon emerged to challenge that order, put it to the test, and propose meaningful alternatives. What peeves me in politics more than anything else is when people settle for an old set of ideas and lack courage, vision, and force of will enough to try to make them even better.

So I do not much like it when some bloke opts to laud a past or present system or public figure as having all the answers we as a people will ever need, whether they be on the right, left, or otherwise. I feel our representative democracy should be a process of peaceful, orderly evolution without an end. The Right is at an advantage, all the while, which is fortunate. I shudder at the thought of how disastrous it would be for society to try out every new idea.

. . .

tl;dr version: I don't know that a next step is out there but have enduring hope for a better future


Does that answer your question, or did I end up straying a bit far off topic? xD



Title: Re: The Good Post Gallery
Post by: Jbrase on August 03, 2012, 02:01:40 am
I refuse to see human life sacrificed on an altar to appease the pantheon of the knife gods that rule China.

and before the you-know-whos get in here, screw you, I'll politicize something that is inherently tied to politics. Why shouldn't 8 people dying needlessly lead to change? Because too many Chinese have a knife fetish to actually pass laws that might prevent these frickin massacres every few months!?


Title: Re: The Good Post Gallery
Post by: Oakvale on August 03, 2012, 10:51:52 am
I refuse to see human life sacrificed on an altar to appease the pantheon of the knife gods that rule China.

and before the you-know-whos get in here, screw you, I'll politicize something that is inherently tied to politics. Why shouldn't 8 people dying needlessly lead to change? Because too many Chinese have a knife fetish to actually pass laws that might prevent these frickin massacres every few months!?

I get that you agree with the sentiment, but I don't understand how that qualifies as a "good post" per se.


Title: Re: The Good Post Gallery
Post by: Jbrase on August 03, 2012, 06:20:15 pm
I refuse to see human life sacrificed on an altar to appease the pantheon of the knife gods that rule China.

and before the you-know-whos get in here, screw you, I'll politicize something that is inherently tied to politics. Why shouldn't 8 people dying needlessly lead to change? Because too many Chinese have a knife fetish to actually pass laws that might prevent these frickin massacres every few months!?

I get that you agree with the sentiment, but I don't understand how that qualifies as a "good post" per se.

I find many things in life are only good or bad depending on the point of view of the individual observing/experiencing/acting out it. To myself, and I am sure other, that is a fantastic post, to others maybe not so much. Think like this is a good food thread, I could post something that includes mountains of sauerkraut on top of good fresh made bratwurst while that may not be everyone elses cup of tea.

:)


Title: Re: The Good Post Gallery
Post by: Bacon! 🔥 on August 03, 2012, 09:28:30 pm
Bushie, I'm 130 pages into the Second update, and I can draw no conclusion except you are truly a cursed, miserable, terrible specimen of a human being. I cannot believe I was able to go and attempt to give you advice when you have so thoroughly ignored every piece of advice offered to you in this forum. Nor can I believe that we continued to give it.

I don't know what to say. You should be ashamed of yourself, scamming and exploiting and lying about your job situation, then claiming that you've received guidance from God! God is not talking to you... our God is a good God and He would not be leading you down your destructive path, so maybe it's Satan. But I doubt anyone is talking to you, at least not talking sense. No, you have your enablers, your parents and that pastor, who are useless enough to lead you to where you are today. I come from an African background, as you know, and we deeply follow and abide by our parents. But you depend on them as if you are five.

You go from a good paying job to a scam in which you rip off your own parents. You are terrible. No self-respecting man would do such a thing. A MUGU, and one who can be fooled by dishonest ones easily. You were a reverend, a Christian. You blaspheme God by involving Him in your tomfoolery... perhaps that's why you are so wretched.

You claim to take things slow and are engaged in a matter of months to a woman with the maturity of a ten year old. My God, do you not see the rest of us? 2-5+ years before engagement, like normal, coastal Americans! Then you try to get back together with her after she breaks up with you through your parents. I've never even heard of that happening. Ever! I mean, what's wrong with you!?

Then you sign up for a job with a company you worked for and quit before because you didn't like it after a day, I MEAN WHAT IS THAT? HOW CAN YOU BE SO IGNORANT ABOUT WHAT YOU'RE DOING??!!! You go and tell us you're doing one thing and do another, saying you didn't want to believe you were doing sales???? No one's making you do that! You're not a slave! Slavery would be better for you, you would be doing honest work and be made to stick with it! Instead you quit jobs after months, weeks, days, hours! How many jobs have you had since you started the update?

Perhaps you're not real. I desperately want to believe such. Perhaps you're a collaborative effort between authoritarian leftists to erode our faith in humanity... as that's what your update is doing! Chris Christie a few weeks ago said that "Washington thinks it can manage your lives better than you can", and looking at you the answer is "damn right it can!" I know intelligent, sensible, attractive, and personable Oklahomans. What went wrong with you??

I'm watching the weather Channel right now. There's a fire in Oklahoma. I hope it burns your house, maybe that'll drive you to sensible behavior.

Mods, why haven't you banned this idiot yet? He's trolling, soliciting advice and not taking it, indeed doing the exact opposite of what we say. You set your ultimatum, Mikado, but he's failed about 20 such of his own similar goals. Get rid of him. Now!


Title: Re: The Good Post Gallery
Post by: Lief 🐋 on August 03, 2012, 09:43:12 pm
except for the last paragraph, I hope RomneyUtah is never banned and continues to update long after we're all dead


Title: Re: The Good Post Gallery
Post by: Trounce-'em Theresa on August 03, 2012, 10:59:33 pm
Simfan, I hope that you understand that most American adults have more in common with <Republican candidate><state name> than with you, and that this has significant public policy implications.


Title: Re: The Good Post Gallery
Post by: GM R2D2 on August 04, 2012, 09:23:31 am
I finally got around to reading Simfan's post in the Update in its entirety and all I can say is...wow. It deserves enshrinement in a hall of fame of great posts. More than the Good Post Gallery or the Sulfur Mine...we need a hall of fame of the greatest posts of all time. I actually felt the scathing rage behind that post and it hurt. Excellent job, Simfan. Godspeed.


Title: Re: The Good Post Gallery
Post by: Trounce-'em Theresa on August 04, 2012, 08:30:06 pm
Hearing people talk today in the south, you'd think we're all a rainbow coalition of peace, brotherhood and fuzziness! Everybody in the south claims to be colorblind nowadays. Jim Crow? Segregation?? That was years ago!! We're so past that, I'm not racist at all- why just yesterday me and my black friend at work went out to lunch! Would I do that if I was racist??

I think a lot of people are stuck in the mindset that racism only comes in the form of white hoods and lynchings. So if you live and work with people of other races and subscribe to general platitudes about racial equality, like "we're all god's children", then apparently you're in the clear.

I think that's setting the bar way too low. Because, from my experience, these same people will also say terrible things about other races and make really unfair generalizations. A common topic that comes up among whites down here is welfare. Apparently, every person on welfare is black and they're refusing to work or keep their legs closed in order to keep those checks coming in. Every problem in America seems to come back to this. And it's never, "some people" or "some black people on welfare" it's always, "the blacks on welfare." But then they'll compliment their black friend at work who (miraculously) broke the cycle in order to save face.

So, in the end, they seem to use their apparent colorblindness as a crutch to defend their racist attitudes. Things are better now, segregation is over, and any problem in the black community is not a residual effect of the racial hierarchies that have been in effect for centuries, but is instead a moral failing or weakness that black people are solely responsible for.

And for the record, I'm not entirely blameless either. It would be wrong to make this indictment yet exclude myself from blame, since this is exactly what many of the people I'm talking about do to escape criticism or self evaluation. Also, it's weirdly comforting to know that other areas of the country are dealing with this same attitude. The south always has to carry this burden of racism when it really exists everywhere.


Title: Re: The Good Post Gallery
Post by: Napoleon on August 05, 2012, 02:56:03 am
Nathan is the Forum King of troll-killing.

Since the government is going to have to accept that there is a limit to revenue, it might as well be today's level of revenue.

Why?

Why not?

The basic choice is between biting the bullet and doing it now, and, putting it off to a latter date.

Sure, it is theoretically possible to either raise, or cut taxes, from their current level and freeze them forever at that level, but, that's not how humans operate. In practise, the decision to raise taxes will only result in a debate later in which the tax-raisers will claim the underlying facts are the same as they were in 2012.

I really don't think the argument will use 2012 as its touchstone.

The fact that you think taxes can or should be frozen forever at any given level says an awful lot about you, Bob.

The fact that you are incredulous about the notion of the electorate saying, "Enough, we are choosing not to pay higher taxes!," just means you are one of the people whom has to be politically defeated, else taxes will rise to the point that people can't pay them any more.

One of those two limits is going to be reached. It might as well be the electorate choosing not to pay higher taxes.

With respect, I don't think you understand which part of your argument it is that I'm incredulous about.

Again, my point seems to have completely eluded you. I'm fairly confident that if the electorate took the decision to prefer choosing not to pay any higher taxes rather than waiting until they are unable to pay any higher taxes many in the political class would take the attitude that this is just a phase that the electorate is going through and that they need merely wait them out before raising taxes yet again. The electorate has to take this into account.

Either taxes really reach a political limit, or it is subject to renegotiation.  If the electorate continues to renegotiate with the political class, taxes will inevitably rise to the point that the citizenry simply cannot pay more. Again, I am arguing that the electorate choosing a limit for the political class is the rational political choice. If the electorate doesn't stick that political limit then it simply isn't a limit.

Oh, I see what's going on here. You're positing a form of class struggle ('electorate' vs. 'political class' over taxes, which the former always wants as low[/flat?] as possible and the latter always wants as high[/progressive?] as possible) which doesn't actually bear much resemblance to reality at all, although to be absolutely fair it's somewhat more sensible than some other dialectics I've seen people come up with. You don't appear to view the dynamic as one in which taxes are raised and lowered according to real or perceived macroeconomic utility and such policies are argued to the public based upon either their merits or common rhetoric (you likewise don't seem to view taxation as a macroeconomic policy choice of any kind so much as some complicated form of embezzlement, which may explain your apparent inability to understand the import of the fact that income tax rates have been relatively low for several decades now).

Okay, I got your point and understand exactly what was so baffling to me about it. Thank you.


Title: Re: The Good Post Gallery
Post by: Lief 🐋 on August 05, 2012, 03:29:39 am
Beet's posts in this thread are f'ing fantastic: http://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=156803.msg3373766#new


Title: Re: The Good Post Gallery
Post by: Negusa Nagast 🚀 on August 05, 2012, 04:41:22 am
Beet's posts in this thread are f'ing fantastic: http://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=156803.msg3373766#new

Beet is really shining strong in that thread. Of course, it goes right over Politico's head.


Title: Re: The Good Post Gallery
Post by: © tweed on August 05, 2012, 06:06:03 am
Beet's posts in this thread are f'ing fantastic: http://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=156803.msg3373766#new

Beet is really shining strong in that thread. Of course, it goes right over Politico's head.

and it begs the question, why does Beet feel the necessity to jostle with an obviously inferior interlocutor. 


Title: Re: The Good Post Gallery
Post by: Napoleon on August 05, 2012, 06:12:18 am
Beet's posts in this thread are f'ing fantastic: http://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=156803.msg3373766#new

Beet is really shining strong in that thread. Of course, it goes right over Politico's head.

and it begs the question, why does Beet feel the necessity to jostle with an obviously inferior interlocutor. 

Why not?


Title: Re: The Good Post Gallery
Post by: Lief 🐋 on August 05, 2012, 06:12:54 am
Sometimes it's fun to play video games on the easiest setting.


Title: Re: The Good Post Gallery
Post by: dead0man on August 05, 2012, 06:24:51 am
Sometimes it's fun to play video games on the easiest setting.
Uggg, I hate that.  I know people do it (my wife and kids do it sometimes and it bothers me), but I don't understand why.  Perhaps to explore a level (or whatever) for reconisence on a bit you're having a hard time with, but I don't understand the point of playing a game if you're not trying to get the McGuffin.  Maybe I'm weird.


Title: Re: The Good Post Gallery
Post by: Brittain33 on August 05, 2012, 08:01:06 am
Beet's posts in this thread are f'ing fantastic: http://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=156803.msg3373766#new

Beet is really shining strong in that thread. Of course, it goes right over Politico's head.

and it begs the question, why does Beet feel the necessity to jostle with an obviously inferior interlocutor. 

Because if there is no response to people like krazen, Politico and Winfield, even if people know they're wrong, they end up dominating the group and driving out the constructive and well-informed discussion like bad money driving out good.


Title: Re: The Good Post Gallery
Post by: Mechaman on August 06, 2012, 09:54:43 am
In the Comedy thread, but I believe this is a more appropriate place:

My current running theory is that Obama and Romney are actually the same person.  That one person is the same trickster god Joseph Campbell used to tell stories about.  The god wore a hat that was colored differently on different sides, and walked back and forth through the village and had everybody confused about who he was, and when the villagers came to blows over his real identity and were brought before the judge, the trickster god showed up, laughed at everyone, and confessed, saying: "spreading strife is my greatest joy."  So, I'm hoping for a razor-thin election night, lasting until the wee hours of the morning, leaving everybody mad and exhausted and accusing one another of high treason, and when a winner is finally declared, the concession speech and acceptance speech will actually be the same one event, and the one guy who has played the part of both Romney and Obama, wearing a hat with a corporate logo on one side and a community organizer logo on the other, will saunter up to the podium, point at the audience smartly, and say: "made ya look!"


Title: Re: The Good Post Gallery
Post by: anvi on August 06, 2012, 11:55:03 am
Wow, I made it here!  ;D


Title: Re: The Good Post Gallery
Post by: Grumpy Santa on August 06, 2012, 12:05:37 pm
Wow, I made it here!  ;D

Stop it......much of your posting history can be placed here :)


Title: Re: The Good Post Gallery
Post by: shua on August 08, 2012, 12:32:34 am
I have to say that the way both sides present the debate on Climate Change seems to be quite fallacious.  I mean, from my view there are two sides here that engage in a level of naivete that is reserved for people who think Professional Wrestling is real:

Side One: THERE IS NO CLIMATE CHANGE!  AND IT IS DEFINITELY NOT MAN MADE! (foams at mouth)
Variation: Yes there is Climate Change, but it is definitely not at all manmade.  It's soooo natural man!

And then there is the other side of the debate, mostly agreed on by "feelgooders" and socially conscious PC liberals:

Side 2: Climate change is real, it is caused by humans, BUT WE CAN PREVENT IT FROM GOING ANY FURTHER!

(facepalm)

I mean really, no wonder why a bunch of people find this debate to be so mindblowingly stupid.  What did people think happened to industrial gasses?  That said gasses were converted into Angel Farts?  Seriously!?  Industrialized areas are known to have higher rates of cancer and lung problems....yet people are shocked that industrialization could possibly lead to Climate Change?  The Earth is changing, yes it's our fault, AND NOW WE ARE NOW HOISTED BY OUR OWN PETARD!  THE PETARD OF INDUSTRIALIZATION!

So yes, the alarmists are indeed right.. . .  . .until they have the audacity, the nerve to say that we can be saved.  That we can actually stop this process.

We are beyond salvation right now.  We would need f***ing Star Trek technology to reverse the trend.  Sure, you could argue BUT BUT GREEN ENERGY!  BUHBUHBUT GREEN TAXES!  Yes, and wearing a WIN button will stop runaway inflation.  Such policies are at best "feel good" and don't do what needs to be done: reversal.  We don't need to stop the trend, WE NEED TO F***ING REVERSE IT.  And with the level of tech we are at I would love somebody to enlighten me as to HOW with technology where it's at how we ever hope to stop the Climate Change process.

If there is ever a case to be made for Futility, this is it.

But you know, maybe I'm wrong.  Maybe there is some data I'm overlooking that suggests that climate scales and graphs are wrong and that there was significantly more climate instability in 980 AD than now.  Or maybe there is some tech out there that, if given the funding, would somehow reverse the current trends and there will be a snowy winter in 2032 IF WE ACT NOW.
If so, then please, enlighten me.  Because so far I don't know why people waste the same amount of time on this issue as they would on more meaningful issues, like the amount of latent homosexuality in Top Gun.



I see the Evolutionary psychology is strong in this thread. This is inevitable for this board, at least so it seems (in "sex threads" anyway).

As for me, I'm in no position to be picky, so I'm like whatever....

Surely everyone subscribes to at least a few aspects of evolutionary psychology, no?

As I am a person (AFAIK) and thus included in the description of "everyone", the answer would have to be 'no'.

You honestly don't agree with any aspect of it? Why? I'd like to know why I'm wrong.

Well on the issue of sexual attractiveness it is worth noting how little in human history and life sex has had conciously to do with reproduction. We are mammals and like mammals we have social sex - the notion of a 'mate' may have little to do with anything.

Furthermore, differences of what defines attractive have changed so much throughout human history and still vary across the world that create rules on this issue seems absurd. (And of course throughout human history whether you were attracted to him/her or not did not matter one fig when it came to your eventual mate(s). There are still large parts of the world that are like this). However, the idea of sexual attractiveness AFAIK seems to be pretty universal - I could give a cod evolutionary explanashun about this. But I could do the same if the opposite happened to be the case. After all, if our 'role' in our lives is solely to reproduce (this idea, though considered Darwinian in some circles, isn't at all really. Creatures don't have purposes) why have this strange pickiness about it?


Title: Re: The Good Post Gallery
Post by: Trounce-'em Theresa on August 10, 2012, 08:01:31 pm
Sorry, realisticidealist, you know I love you, but this is a very good post and I agree with it in full:

There are a lot of things that have gone wrong with how we treat marriage in this country, but letting gays marry I think is the least of them. I would be more comfortable with it if gay marriage supporters were half as concerned about the institution of marriage itself as they were about using the issue as a tool to route out "bigots" and feel superior about themselves. Not all are that way of course, but if often seems like it. It just seems like so many liberals care so much about gay marriage on one hand, but simultaneous talk out of the other side of their mouth about how marriage is an archaic institution that should be done away with and about how progressive they are for opposing this anachronistic holdover. You can't have it both ways.

I just don't understand what is really mutually exclusive about thinking marriage is a decayed institution while also supporting legalizing gay marriage. Of course, I don't personally think marriage is an archaic institution that should be tossed away and listening to that argument gets me all testy, but you can absolutely think it's a decaying institution while also thinking there's no reason not to legalize gay marriage.

I'm just not sure where this hostility you have for this issue comes from. You act like you support it, but you hate that you have absolutely no choice but to support it; like you're angry that other people force you to admit you're wrong about something. It's weird from someone usually so reasonable and wonky about everything.


Title: Re: The Good Post Gallery
Post by: RI on August 10, 2012, 08:34:33 pm
Sorry, realisticidealist, you know I love you, but this is a very good post and I agree with it in full:

There are a lot of things that have gone wrong with how we treat marriage in this country, but letting gays marry I think is the least of them. I would be more comfortable with it if gay marriage supporters were half as concerned about the institution of marriage itself as they were about using the issue as a tool to route out "bigots" and feel superior about themselves. Not all are that way of course, but if often seems like it. It just seems like so many liberals care so much about gay marriage on one hand, but simultaneous talk out of the other side of their mouth about how marriage is an archaic institution that should be done away with and about how progressive they are for opposing this anachronistic holdover. You can't have it both ways.

I just don't understand what is really mutually exclusive about thinking marriage is a decayed institution while also supporting legalizing gay marriage. Of course, I don't personally think marriage is an archaic institution that should be tossed away and listening to that argument gets me all testy, but you can absolutely think it's a decaying institution while also thinking there's no reason not to legalize gay marriage.

I'm just not sure where this hostility you have for this issue comes from. You act like you support it, but you hate that you have absolutely no choice but to support it; like you're angry that other people force you to admit you're wrong about something. It's weird from someone usually so reasonable and wonky about everything.

I at least tried to answer it as honestly as possible. :P


Title: Re: The Good Post Gallery
Post by: shua on August 10, 2012, 10:54:12 pm
realistic's response after that was good as well.


Title: Re: The Good Post Gallery
Post by: J-Mann on August 10, 2012, 11:53:30 pm
An old post from a poster who has moved on to bigger and better things in life

is this known, or just a kind cliche?

Well clearly Colin Wixted has found better things to do with his life than post on this forum.  

which assumes anyone who leaves voluntarily does so because they are doing better things; which begs the question, what is the fundamental defect of those who continue to post?

In point of fact continued posting is a good sign - of reasonable prosperity (internet access, a computer, enough food and drink to be cognizant) and health (the poster has not died or become to ill to post).  Nowadays most people who cease posting can be assumed to have fallen into poverty, living under a bridge, or to have died due to aneurism or other troubles.

Opebo, I miss you! However, some of us truly move on to bigger and better things (though I like to drop in from time to time).


Title: Re: The Good Post Gallery
Post by: Saturday's Cab Ride Home on August 11, 2012, 01:01:14 am
As a response to jmfcst this is quite dated now, but I just found it and I think it was passed up the first time it was posted, and it's too good to exclude from here:

jmfcst, people "hate" (I use the term "hate" because it's being used referring to sports and not a meaningful context) because he's a mediocre NFL quarterback who has managed to orchestrate a series of flukey last second drives. Not because he's a virgin or Christian or whatever. People (like myself) may mock the act of Tebowing, but that's more a component of his personality rather than a specific attack on his faith. Philip Rivers and Peyton Manning and Josh Hamilton and Jeremy Lin are all outspoken Christians, yet nobody hates them because they're actually good at what they do.


Title: Re: The Good Post Gallery
Post by: Trounce-'em Theresa on August 11, 2012, 01:03:48 am
realistic's response after that was good as well.

Yes, it was.


Title: Re: The Good Post Gallery
Post by: opebo on August 11, 2012, 05:10:03 am
Opebo, I miss you! However, some of us truly move on to bigger and better things (though I like to drop in from time to time).

I miss you too, dear Horatio, and am glad to hear of your 'success'.  I alas continue in statis = a man in a sinecure is in paradise but for one thing: he knows it cannot last forever.

And my 'good post' is:

Colorado is the next Oregon.

And I think Ohio is the next Michigan.


Title: Re: The Good Post Gallery
Post by: memphis on August 12, 2012, 08:19:04 pm
Patrick and Torie,

I know I've invited this attention, but I just don't want another update thread to spring up in place of the one that is locked.  Lord knows the moderators had enough trouble keeping the first one contained, let alone having two or possibly three.

Nope - you told me you could handle it.  From now on, you do your own containing.  I advised you to keep it locked months ago, and you opened Pandora's box... whatever happens now is yours to deal with.


Title: Re: The Good Post Gallery
Post by: Trumpism: Turn the dial all the way up and pull off the knob on August 13, 2012, 05:23:10 pm
To be honest, I think the Republican Party is doomed if it doesn't start nominating candidates like Huntsman, I mean for god sakes, he opposes same-sex marriage, cut taxes whilst he was Governor, supports tougher immigration laws and restricted access to abortions. I mean, if he's not conservative, then quite frankly who is. The Republican Party is being destroyed by the irrational cancer that comprises the Bachmann/West/Perry/Norquist wing, who insist that every candidate must conform to what they see as conservative on every issue, 100% of the time. I mean I doubt even Ronald Reagan could have won a GOP nomination now, as they would have seen him as too willing to compromise. The stage the party has reached of the religious right and Tea Party having a virtual veto power over the choice of candidate is really bad for the Republican Party. The Party won't ever win back the Presidency in any meaningful way unless this situation changes.

Rant over


Title: Re: The Good Post Gallery
Post by: A Strange Reflection on August 13, 2012, 05:42:20 pm
Wow, very pleasant surprise coming from Rhodie.


Title: Re: The Good Post Gallery
Post by: Lief 🐋 on August 15, 2012, 12:27:48 am
Hopefully he'll embrace his Jewish heritage. Also 'economic populism' sucks.

I love this post because it perfectly encapsulates your posting. The latter inflammatory sentence has basically nothing directly to do with anything the topic set out to discuss, but you feel the need to post it, because you super duper want people to notice you're a neoliberal, a term virtually nobody proudly labels themselves with, because it's used almost entirely in the pejorative sense, unless they're trolling or completely oblivious. You are trying way, way too hard.


Title: Re: The Good Post Gallery
Post by: opebo on August 17, 2012, 06:16:10 pm
American Racist... I'd include most of you guys (White American Atlas Posters) under the heading. :P


Title: Re: The Good Post Gallery
Post by: patrick1 on August 17, 2012, 10:56:49 pm
That argument was comprehensively debunked, destroyed and generally reduced to the status of a stock joke almost as soon as Barnett published his book. The only people who take it seriously are people who are not to be taken seriously.

Anyway, and to just go over a couple of points that are obvious rather than insightful, Britain's status as a 'superpower' (to use a ridiculous and ahistorical term in this context) was effectively ended by the First World War, even if the Foreign Office continued to believe otherwise. The repeated economic fiascoes and diplomatic humiliations of the 1920s and 1930s are testament enough. That the Empire itself was doomed was obvious to all observers by the 1930s, which is why debates on the issue tended to verge on the hysterical. The stresses and strains of the Second World War merely completed matters. Even if this were not true, of course, talk of 'decline' misses the point and shows what might be thought of as an imperialist mindset; the Post War period was one of unprecedented (and almost unbelievable for many at the time) prosperity for ordinary people in Britain. When Macmillan said that people had 'never had it so good' he was being a paternalistic dick, but he was also quite correct.

Anyway, and if we're talking about Britain in the twentieth century, It really comes down to whether you'd rather live in a slum, work in a job that may well end up killing you, be bow-legged from rickets and shorter than you'd rightfully be because of malnutrition, have no financial security whatsoever and access to only limited medical services but live in a country with vast Imperial possessions overseas, or whether you'd rather have the opposite.


Title: Re: The Good Post Gallery
Post by: Tetro Kornbluth on August 18, 2012, 06:29:30 am
That argument was comprehensively debunked, destroyed and generally reduced to the status of a stock joke almost as soon as Barnett published his book. The only people who take it seriously are people who are not to be taken seriously.

Anyway, and to just go over a couple of points that are obvious rather than insightful, Britain's status as a 'superpower' (to use a ridiculous and ahistorical term in this context) was effectively ended by the First World War, even if the Foreign Office continued to believe otherwise. The repeated economic fiascoes and diplomatic humiliations of the 1920s and 1930s are testament enough. That the Empire itself was doomed was obvious to all observers by the 1930s, which is why debates on the issue tended to verge on the hysterical. The stresses and strains of the Second World War merely completed matters. Even if this were not true, of course, talk of 'decline' misses the point and shows what might be thought of as an imperialist mindset; the Post War period was one of unprecedented (and almost unbelievable for many at the time) prosperity for ordinary people in Britain. When Macmillan said that people had 'never had it so good' he was being a paternalistic dick, but he was also quite correct.

Anyway, and if we're talking about Britain in the twentieth century, It really comes down to whether you'd rather live in a slum, work in a job that may well end up killing you, be bow-legged from rickets and shorter than you'd rightfully be because of malnutrition, have no financial security whatsoever and access to only limited medical services but live in a country with vast Imperial possessions overseas, or whether you'd rather have the opposite.

I was just about to post that...


Title: Re: The Good Post Gallery
Post by: Lief 🐋 on August 18, 2012, 09:20:22 pm
So the logic here is that because Ryan's mom is on Medicare, he would never consider cutting it? Let's forget entirely about the fact that these people don't need Medicare, and jump to the track record that refutes this:

  • Paul Ryan's family built their contracting business in large part through government contracts to build roads and bridges, yet opposes any plan to rebuild these sorts of infrastructure today in our country using government assistance
  • Paul Ryan received Social Security as-is and unlike most beneficiaries, hadn't even paid into the program, yet has supported eliminating its effectiveness and reducing benefits as opposed to raising FICA revenues to make the program solvent
  • Paul Ryan attended public school - something his wealthy family chose - yet support massive NDD spending cuts that will eviscerate the Department of Education
  • Paul Ryan attended a public college subsidized by state and federal governments via taxpayers, yet support eliminating $170 billion in financial assistance for college students
  • Paul Ryan has been in Congress and earning paychecks for the past 14 years - with an expansive health care plan to boot, yet supports revoking access to health care on multiple fronts to tens of millions of Americans

Face it: this guy's been on the government tit since he was born, and is nothing more than the byproduct of redistribution from others. I think at his core, Paul Ryan hates himself for being such a hypocritical welfare queen, just like his idol.


Title: Re: The Good Post Gallery
Post by: opebo on August 20, 2012, 03:00:04 pm
You really are a bunch of disgusting people.

EternalCynic, what makes a sex crime a so-called crime in your book? Please elaborate.

The first Swedish prosecutor who considered the charge withdrew it, claiming it had no chance of success.

Only after the US cables started emerging did a previously dismissed accusation magically reappear. The most recent documents do indicate that the US is trying to get Assange to face trial over something that he, as a non-US citizen, can't be tried for. The fact that Sweden is zealously pursuing Assange when a Serb accused of murder in Sweden isn't being pursued as zealously (you know, since murder is more important than consensual sex without a condom) makes any notion that there's a black hand behind this, credible. Assange has repeatedly stated he's happy to go to Sweden if Sweden can guarantee he won't be extradited to any third country.

And besides, suave authoritarian regimes don't accuse their dissidents of treason or subverting the state. They accuse them of tax evasion, rape, bylaw infringement, and so on. The real disgusting people are those who try to manipulate the public's concern for women in order to attain a sinister goal, not those who call their BS.


Title: Re: The Good Post Gallery
Post by: Trounce-'em Theresa on August 21, 2012, 05:00:27 am
Niall Ferguson wrote an article that graces the cover of Newsweek this week.

Niall Ferguson wrote an article

Niall Ferguson

Niall Ferguson

That man.  That name.  It haunts me.  Will Niall Ferguson ever leave me alone?  Why must that name chase me?


Title: Re: The Good Post Gallery
Post by: Trumpism: Turn the dial all the way up and pull off the knob on August 21, 2012, 03:39:52 pm
Really, any post by Nathan belongs in here.


Title: Re: The Good Post Gallery
Post by: patrick1 on August 21, 2012, 11:46:44 pm
Interesting and informative reporting from Dibble.

http://www.westernjournalism.com/exclusive-investigative-reports/harry-reids-dirty-laundry/

By his own account Reid entered Congress a man of limited assets, drew the modest salary of a Congressman/Senator, paid for 100 semesters of college for his four sons, yet amassed a net worth over $10,000,000. Those are numbers that just don't add up.

LULZ. When Reid entered Congress in 1983 the salary of a representative was $69,800 a year, which would be $140,769.89 adjusted for inflation. By what standard is that modest?


Anywho, did some checking because this thread lacks any real analysis, and it's important to note what assets Harry Reid actually has - having assets is not necessarily the same thing as having cash at hand. It should be noted that Reid's assets are not necessarily worth $10,360,000.00 - in fact they could be less. In fact, the same source that the article in the OP mentions, opensecrets.org, specifies that range:

Source: http://www.opensecrets.org/pfds/CIDsummary.php?CID=N00009922&year=2010

Assets: 58 totaling $3,402,053 to $10,360,000

The $10 million figure is the high estimate, and isn't likely an accurate figure. It's likely closer to the middle - $6.8 million average according the site. That's still a lot of course.

As mentioned real-estate makes up 80% of his total assets. Real estate values can change drastically in either direction depending on the prevailing conditions, and it can be quite profitable even without insider information if you know what you're doing. On a Congressman's salary it wouldn't be unusual for someone to be able to buy some promising land on the cheap as an investment.

One real estate asset of Reid's particularly stands out - he owns 160 acres of land in Bullhead City, AZ that is valued at $1,000,001 to $5,000,000. That's almost a third of the low total and almost half of the high estimate.

Since this is his largest asset, it's the most worth investigating. I managed to dig up some history in regards to this land:

1. Reid initially purchased the 100 acres of the land somewhere between 1979 and 1982 for $150,000. (somewhere between $356,120.21 and $473,355.37) His friend Clair Haycock bought the other 60 acres in the same period for $90,000. (they actually bought it together as one parcel, and that's just how the numbers work out)

2. In 1987 Haycock turned over his interest in the land to an employee pension fund he was the trustee of.

3. In the early 1990's an investment group bought the land from Reid and Haycock for $1.3 million, but ended up defaulting and the land returned to Reid and Haycock.

4. In 2002 Haycock sold his interest in the land to Reid for a mere $10,000. The Mojave County assessor valued the whole parcel at $339,620, so Haycock's portion would have been worth ~$127,000 at the time. Six months later Reid introduced a bill that would help lubricants dealers that had their supplies disrupted by the decisions of big oil companies. Haycock runs a lubricant distribution business. The bill failed. However, this may be unrelated to the sale as records do indicate that Reid had been pushing for such legislation since the mid 90's. The pension fund was also closed out having met it's obligations, so the land being sold under market value may not have been an issue and Haycock may have just been eager to get it off the books.

5. In 2003 Reid - at the time a member of the Senate Appropriations Committee's transportation subcommittee - acted on a request from the town of Laughlin, NV,which borders Bullhead City, and secured $500,000 to do a preliminary study on building a new bridge between the two towns. In 2006 he sponsored an earmark for $18 million to build the bridge. The bridge is actually close to his land, and the bridge would likely make the value go up.

Sources:
http://www.thepoliticalguide.com/Profiles/Senate/Nevada/Harry_Reid/Scandals/Bridge_Earmark/
http://articles.latimes.com/2007/jan/28/nation/na-reid28


So Reid's history with the land isn't entirely spotless, but it isn't definitely damning either. Haycock selling him the land for less than market value could have been greasing his palms for legislation, but given that there are records that Reid was already pushing for that legislation it could be unrelated. The bridge earmark certainly benefits Reid personally, but the bridge apparently does have legitimate support from a Nevada town so his support for it was not necessarily tied to his interest in the land. His ethics in regards to this land isn't entirely clear.

However, this does show some things that address the question asked in regards to Reid in the opening of this thread:

Reid's single largest asset by far was purchased before he entered Congress in 1983. Costing $356,120.21 and $473,355.37 in today's dollars, it's clear he had a good amount of money before he entered Congress. He also couldn't have gotten insider information from being in Congress when purchasing the land either. Potentially he might have gotten info at the time from being the Nevada Gaming Commission chairman, but anyone would have had access to the knowledge that Laughlin is a casino town and that buying nearby land would be a potentially good investment.


I'm going to err on the side of him probably not having used insider knowledge and that he's largely just a savvy real-estate investor.


Title: Re: The Good Post Gallery
Post by: Trounce-'em Theresa on August 22, 2012, 06:24:38 am
Paul Ryan is the first national ticket candidate to have been born in the 1970s. That means he was among the first generation to spend their young adulthood in an era when suits were no longer regular, everyday attire for men, and, increasingly, weren't even worn to work.

Every man used to know how to wear a suit properly. Even a blue-collar worker would wear one to church on Sundays. Today, I'd venture to guess a large swathe of American men could go a year or more without ever being in a situation where they would be expected to wear a suit. They aren't required in the office anymore. They aren't required in church anymore. People don't dress up to go to the movies or get on airplanes anymore; the glamor of both of those activities has long since faded away. We've become a nation of elastic waistbands and Crocs and flat-brimmed baseball hats.

I have visions of a horrific future in which people campaign for president in badly fitting short-sleeved golf shirts and rubber-soled shoes.


Title: Re: The Good Post Gallery
Post by: Saturday's Cab Ride Home on August 22, 2012, 10:51:59 am
Nathan, you wear suits?


Title: Re: The Good Post Gallery
Post by: Trounce-'em Theresa on August 22, 2012, 10:55:50 am
Nathan, you wear suits?

Sometimes. Not as much as I'd like to. I think people in leadership positions should, since more formal and ceremonial styles apparently aren't an option any more.


Title: Re: The Good Post Gallery
Post by: Lief 🐋 on August 22, 2012, 11:10:55 pm
http://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=157910.0

Meeker's trolling in this thread is exquisite.


Title: Re: The Good Post Gallery
Post by: minionofmidas - supplemental forum account on August 23, 2012, 04:39:48 am
http://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=157910.0

Meeker's trolling in this thread is exquisite.
Amazing that nobody caught it. The "internet" post (and the thread creator's otherwise functional brain) ought to have been dead giveaways.

Full disclosure: I skimmed the thread when it was about half its final length and didn't spot it either.


Title: Re: The Good Post Gallery
Post by: Northam for Governor '17 on August 23, 2012, 10:29:49 pm
This is truth.  The Left has this horrible infantile tendency to lionize and venerate anyone who fights the same people they dislike, turning that figure into a hero, a saint, and, inevitably and always, a martyr.  The modern hard Left has more hagiography going on than the Venerable Bede published in a lifetime, and you can tell they're hungering for Assange to die a horrible death so they can pin him up with Trotsky and Che Guevara on their "martyrs in the heroic struggle" Tumblr background while continuing to not actually do anything other than talk about their masturbatory fantasies of life "after the revolution," when suddenly scarcity, hunger, and unemployment will magically disappear.  Assange's sins will, nay, must be pardoned, just like the Trotskyites have forgotten the Kronstadt Mutiny when Trotsky murdered the sailors who helped make the Revolution a reality in the first place, because the idea of Assange is more important to them than Assange the man is.


Title: Re: The Good Post Gallery
Post by: Marokai Backbeat on August 23, 2012, 10:32:53 pm
Generalization aside, it's unfortunately very true.


Title: Re: The Good Post Gallery
Post by: shua on August 25, 2012, 01:42:04 pm
Torie had a valid critique of Mikado's post, but still, it and Nathan's reply belong here.

My current identification is "none," not atheist.  Atheist is so constraining, leaving atheism was like taking off a straitjacket.

I would be interested in "hearing" more about your personal story as to the bolded part, if you are willing Mikado.

Atheists tend to be impossible to talk to regarding everything I'm interested in and passionate about.  I love to debate theology, but (afleitch and Dibble are good examples) tend to always go "that never happened," which is totally a nonstarter and besides the point of what I'm trying to talk about (I always approach works from an in-universe analytical point of view, and "God doesn't exist" is frustrating in the same way as "Raskolnikov doesn't exist").  If I want to discuss whether Krishna's argument with Arjuna that he is a divine, all-seeing entity is an appropriate backing-up for his claim that Arjuna, as a Kshatriya, has to follow his Dharma to go into battle (is "I'm Vishnu and you're not" an argument with legitimate moral force?), I'd always get a response of "Krishna/Vishnu and Arjuna never existed."  If I'd try to talk about the ethics of Jesus' pronouncements on divorce, I'd get some "Jesus never existed/didn't say that" response, which is basically the reason I stopped going into the Religion and Philosophy board.  It's intellectual sophistry of the first order on the part of the atheists to dismiss arguments from Sacred Texts as illegitimate because they weren't authentic: that doesn't address the actual meanings of the words at all.  I've read the Bible (Old and New Testaments), Koran, Bhagavad Gita, and the Dhammapada, as well as extensive works by Augustine, Aquinas, some Schleiermacher, some Kierkegaard, etc. and anytime I try to talk about them I get a "God doesn't exist," followed by the person going to talk about the new Batman movie.  I've refrained from posting "Batman doesn't exist" over and over again. 

The existence/nonexistence of God is utterly irrelevant to the validity of religion and its study and the contemptuous dismissal of it leads to social diseases like positivism, the utter contempt for the past, and the slavish worship of the new God Science that are endemic in certain well-educated parts of modern society.  Michel Foucault writes in The Birth of the Clinic in specific and throughout his works in general how the medical and other scientific institutions have assumed the language and rhetoric of Truth from religion and have attempted to invalidate all truths other than the materialist, physical "reality" they peddle in order to enhance their own power, and its worked stupendously.  Foucault's "biopower," the power that physicians and scientists have gained through their obsessive categorization, classification, and prying into the most private and intimate aspects of human life down to our cells, nay, down to our DNA, has led them to have an amazing degree of control over all aspects of our lives, and the destruction of the substitution of religious truth and power with theirs is one of the key aspects of that rise.  His History of Sexuality Part I, Civilization and Madness, and The Birth of the Clinic in specific and his entire works in general have shown the huge disadvantages of accepting scientific truth as a cultural replacement for religious truth, and is one of the big reasons why he ended up fanatically supporting Ayatollah Khoemeini in his last days despite clearly not believing in God himself.  In many ways, Science is a far more dangerous master than Religion ever was, and the twentieth century has already clearly demonstrated that the road to Progress leads straight into the gates of Auschwitz.  "Modernity" and "Civilization" are orders of magnitude more gruesome and morally repugnant values than anything "Savagery" ever offered.

TL/DR I have no problem with the disbelief of God, I have a problem with the summary dismissal and rejection of religion and the blind worship of the false gods of Science and Progress, and that's what modern atheism entails.

I'm reminded of my Japanese language instructor, who's from a Zen priestly family from a very rural part of western Japan. Japan is what we'd call a religious society in a lot of ways but being given to much explicit religious thought isn't one of them. At some point between the Tokugawa era and the post-war (there's a lot of debate over this) most of the religious institutions in Japan stopped being taken really seriously in terms of truth-value, but what happened here is that many Japanese people stopped caring very much about the truth-value of their metaphysical and cultural narratives. Obviously this has led to problems. We can probably think of a really obvious one right off the top of our heads. But what this has meant is that aesthetically and culturally elements of this society have stayed more or less constant despite surface-level extreme secularization (and I do think that secularization is a process that admits of getting extreme or going way too far). This isn't in all ways a good thing but the last attempt to reverse or redirect the set of processes going on here led to State Shinto, which was at its core an attempt to rationalize--and, not to put too fine a point on it, contextualize within Modern ideas of the nation and the state and what constitutes 'reasonable' public reliogisity (this was of course a fascist context but fascism is still a type of modern context)--a religion that originally...well, the Atlantic recently ran a surprisingly good article on the subject of the De Beers cartel and I couldn't take it as seriously as I would have liked because it used the phrase 'Shinto law'. That's what Shinto is. It doesn't use that language. Christianity and Buddhism do, but that's not really what they should be about either.

I'm a little inarticulate right now both because I'm more tired than I am at this time of the evening and because my Internet is slow as sh**t right now and I don't know why, but I think it's worth considering the idea that the mechanisms for self-validation that modernist metanarratives claim are somewhat crueler than religious ones, because they don't validate themselves on their own terms but in terms of so-called positivist or rational ideals that everybody is supposed to hold or something. Which puts those of us who partially agree with those ideas but aren't willing to make them the absolute acme of values in an odd situation. Religious ideas may be more flagrant in their lack of immediately obvious resemblance to the level of reality that most people perceive most of the time but at least, except in particularly toxic examples of theocratic academia or government, they at least have that benefit. Since they're self-referential, as Mikado said, even if you don't believe in them, using your unbelief to shut down conversations about them is a dick move. Not even Paul of Tarsus did that, and he used other dick moves relatively frequently.

Beet: I think that we as a people privilege the idea of personal belief a little too strongly in some of these types of conversations.


Title: Re: The Good Post Gallery
Post by: Come grasp the mighty avatar of our admin on August 25, 2012, 05:09:36 pm
dead0man impressed me today

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


Title: Re: The Good Post Gallery
Post by: Joe Republic on August 26, 2012, 12:03:32 am
Infracting for trolling at the 2012 Election board is like giving speeding tickets at Indy 500.


Title: Re: The Good Post Gallery
Post by: opebo on August 28, 2012, 11:27:53 am
(http://i37.photobucket.com/albums/e68/EraserheadsSon/white_image26.jpg)


Title: Re: The Good Post Gallery
Post by: opebo on August 28, 2012, 02:22:32 pm
Whites will be less than 74% of the electorate. Their percentage is declining in every election and I don't see why this trend will be reversed now.
Voter ID laws.


Title: Re: The Good Post Gallery
Post by: Saturday's Cab Ride Home on August 29, 2012, 01:22:46 am
It's not a small technicality.  Putting all of your eggs in one basket, just to have that basket fall to the ground means you don't have any eggs left.  Putting most of your eggs in one basket means you still have eggs left.  It's not a technicality - it's a huge difference.  Time after time you've been dishonest with the forum, and your story never stays the same.

All of a sudden your sure-fire plan falls through and WHAMO! there's a sudden back-up plan.  But we can't know what the company is?  For someone who compulsively shares details of his life with the forum, that seems strange.  So why all of a sudden is there secrecy with this company and none of the previous ones?  Is this another Rainbow incident?

Alright, fine, I'll disclose the name of the company - Aetna Insurance.  Jr. Web Developer for Aetna Insurance located in Layton, Utah which is 12 miles south of downtown Ogden.  This position has been developing since Xerox was still in play back in early August.  It has slowly materialized and I was actually accepted a week ago, but I just kept it under my hat because I really wanted to go to Kansas.  Since I am not going to Kansas, I am going to Utah, instead.

Either you're lying to us or someone is lying to you.

Here's why!

  • The three Aetna Insurance offices in Utah are located in Salt Lake City, Sandy, and Taylorsville. None of these are very close to Ogden or Layton.
  • Looking at the Aetna website, jobs with the prefix "junior" seem to be exclusively for college interns.
  • There is no "junior" position that exists in their web team.
  • Aetna doesn't call the position "Web Developer", they call it "Web Engineer."
  • None of Aetna's three Utah offices are currently hiring Web Engineers, or any other jobs in the IT field for that matter, besides a few random non-web IT jobs in SLC.
  • Oh, actually, the entire Web Engineer team is based solely out of their national headquarters in Connecticut, so there's literally no reason for them to ever be offered in Utah or anywhere else.

You will be interviewing for a non-existent job in a non-existent office, and if the job were to exist it would effectively be a minimum wage internship, and instead of being at the non-existent office near Ogden it would actually be in Hartford, Connecticut, on the other side of the country.


Title: Re: The Good Post Gallery
Post by: GM R2D2 on August 31, 2012, 09:14:17 am
At least in part, Sam, yes. I would rather the contest be over which political-economic paradigm to pursue, not whether social policies should be somewhat permissive or ethnocentric with a hint of repression. I actually consider capitalism less of a threat to individual rights, equality, and social justice than conservatism as pursued - no offense being intended - by the GOP's Christian right. And at least an Obama-Johnson contest would provide a clear political mandate on what sort of role government should assume in the years to come and how our debt ought to be addressed.


Title: Re: The Good Post Gallery
Post by: A Strange Reflection on September 03, 2012, 02:12:11 am
Despite the complaints from some people, before this thread and during the brief period when it was locked, any time someone made a particularly absurd, ignorant or bad post, it would either get posted in the Comedy Goldmine instead (resulting in other complaints) or someone would make a poll about that post saying something like "Is this one of the stupidest things you've ever read on the forum?" and a lot more bickering and flooding would result. The most notable example I can remember is when Harry made a poll just to point out that South Park Conservative claimed that oil is not a fossil fuel.

So it serves a purpose. Something even Inks seemed to have learned due to his unlocking of it.


Title: Re: The Good Post Gallery
Post by: Lief 🐋 on September 03, 2012, 11:58:25 pm
I'm gonna print this post out, frame it, and put it on my wall:

Pretty much every economic indicator has improved since the end of the recession in mid-2009. Unemployment is down, unemployment claims are down, jobs created are up, corporate earnings are up, total debt is down, the deficit as a percentage of GDP is down, GDP growth is up, credit card and mortgage delinquencies are down, TARP has gone from a $700 billion bailout to $66 billion with a project profit, the banks are in better shape, AIG has turned to no taxpayer loss, Fannie and Freddie have gone from multibillion-dollar quarterly losses to profits, the housing market has bottomed and is turning, the automakers are revived and sales are growing, manufacturing is up, industrial production is up, consumer spending is up, real personal income is up, exports are up, we are more energy independent, and interest rates are down.

Policy is better. The financial system is better regulated, banks are required to have higher capital, more children are covered under health insurance, another estimated 30 million people will be covered by health insurance at no cost to the deficit, standards have been raised for for-profit student loan institutions, numerous successes have been achieved in foreign policy. The only major outstanding policy incomplete is long-term deficit reduction, but there is already an outline for a deal based on the Obama-Boehner agreement of 2011 and/or Simpson/Bowles.

So many predictions haven't come to pass. The predictions of bond market vigilantism from not just the likes of Niall Ferguson but more respected names such as John Taylor back in 2009-- didn't happen. The predictions the economy would never recover without a much deeper liquidation from people like Peter Schiff and Karl Denninger-- didn't happen. The predictions of high inflation-- didn't happen. The predictions of a double-dip recession that seemed to reoccur every season-- didn't happen.

So many disasters have been survived or averted. The Arab Spring. The Japanese tsunami. The euro crisis every season.

The ironic thing about Obama? Back in early 2008, when he was an overrated empty suit with nothing but a couple of corporate slogans that everybody now admits was hollow and false, when he hadn't achieved anything in his life worthy of being his party's Presidential nominee, and much of what he had achieved frankly was aided by a kind of affirmative action, everybody loved him, he walked on water, he could do no wrong. But after 3.5 years of actually working so hard and achieving so much good substantively for this country, it seems that a lot of swing and moderate voters aren't impressed at all. They loved him when they should have hated him and they hate him when they should at least recognize that he turned this country around, even if we're still travelling too slowly.

"Disappointing." Sigh. In the end, that's what it all comes down to. "Disappointing." Life may not be fair, but you sure wish it was.


Title: Re: The Good Post Gallery
Post by: fezzyfestoon on September 04, 2012, 12:15:17 am
I'm gonna print this post out, frame it, and put it on my wall:

Pretty much every economic indicator has improved since the end of the recession in mid-2009. Unemployment is down, unemployment claims are down, jobs created are up, corporate earnings are up, total debt is down, the deficit as a percentage of GDP is down, GDP growth is up, credit card and mortgage delinquencies are down, TARP has gone from a $700 billion bailout to $66 billion with a project profit, the banks are in better shape, AIG has turned to no taxpayer loss, Fannie and Freddie have gone from multibillion-dollar quarterly losses to profits, the housing market has bottomed and is turning, the automakers are revived and sales are growing, manufacturing is up, industrial production is up, consumer spending is up, real personal income is up, exports are up, we are more energy independent, and interest rates are down.

Policy is better. The financial system is better regulated, banks are required to have higher capital, more children are covered under health insurance, another estimated 30 million people will be covered by health insurance at no cost to the deficit, standards have been raised for for-profit student loan institutions, numerous successes have been achieved in foreign policy. The only major outstanding policy incomplete is long-term deficit reduction, but there is already an outline for a deal based on the Obama-Boehner agreement of 2011 and/or Simpson/Bowles.

So many predictions haven't come to pass. The predictions of bond market vigilantism from not just the likes of Niall Ferguson but more respected names such as John Taylor back in 2009-- didn't happen. The predictions the economy would never recover without a much deeper liquidation from people like Peter Schiff and Karl Denninger-- didn't happen. The predictions of high inflation-- didn't happen. The predictions of a double-dip recession that seemed to reoccur every season-- didn't happen.

So many disasters have been survived or averted. The Arab Spring. The Japanese tsunami. The euro crisis every season.

The ironic thing about Obama? Back in early 2008, when he was an overrated empty suit with nothing but a couple of corporate slogans that everybody now admits was hollow and false, when he hadn't achieved anything in his life worthy of being his party's Presidential nominee, and much of what he had achieved frankly was aided by a kind of affirmative action, everybody loved him, he walked on water, he could do no wrong. But after 3.5 years of actually working so hard and achieving so much good substantively for this country, it seems that a lot of swing and moderate voters aren't impressed at all. They loved him when they should have hated him and they hate him when they should at least recognize that he turned this country around, even if we're still travelling too slowly.

"Disappointing." Sigh. In the end, that's what it all comes down to. "Disappointing." Life may not be fair, but you sure wish it was.

It's sad that not getting worse is worth voting for, however muted and unimpressive the "positive" results are...


Title: Re: The Good Post Gallery
Post by: Pingvin on September 04, 2012, 10:40:34 pm
we're here to promote logic: if you purposely stand in front of a moving bulldozer, then you can't blame anyone but yourself


Title: Re: The Good Post Gallery
Post by: SUSAN CRUSHBONE on September 06, 2012, 12:23:39 pm
Mr.X says what we're all thinking:
any jew who votes for this party is like a jew who votes fro the Nazi party.

This thread is so bad it should have stayed at the 2012 Election section.

Krazey and NYJew have really sunk in new lows. Too bad that Stark isn't around anymore. It would've been fun seeing the pigs duking it out in the mud.


majority of your partys delegates in the room just admitted to either being atheists or anti Semites.  50 years ago the almost every single elected democrat would have condemned every single person who vote this way.
the modern day democratic party explains how a evil nut job like Hitler came to power through mostly through democratic means.

though maybe I should drop the Nazi rhetoric would you prefer Soviet rhetoric.

NY Jew, this has been a long-time problem with your posts, this isn't the first or even the fourth or fifth time you've done something like this and it needs to stop.  The way that you often casually compare anyone you disagree with on any issue even remotely connected to Judaism and/or Israel to "Jews who vote for Nazis", "anti-semites," etc is a disgrace.  It is bad enough when gentiles compare political opponents to the Nazis, but when Jews such as yourself do it, its one of the worst possible insults to the victims of the Holocaust and the many other atrocities that have been committed against the Jewish people throughout our history.  Someone as concerned about the welfare and dignity of the Jewish people as you claim to be would never trivialize the Holocaust and desecrate the memory of its victims the way that you did.  And no, "Soviet rhetoric" is not any better.  The fact that in your mind people who disagree with you on the inclusion of a plank in a party platform are equivalent to a government whose first leader alone killed over 20 million people means that there is something seriously wrong with you.  How about you stop comparing stop comparing people who disagree with you minor and inconsequential political issues to mass murderers.  And if that's too much to manage than just help yourself to a nice glass of shut the **** up!


Title: Re: The Good Post Gallery
Post by: Grumpy Santa on September 06, 2012, 02:08:29 pm
(sexualizing Fluke).

seriously, dude? 

"Hey, I like to fuc(http://)k.  I like it alot.  So you should pay for my birth control."

Guess what, sister:  We all like to fuc(http://)k!  But we don't necessarily all go on national TV and brag about how we have such a grand sense of entitlement that, even though we can cough up enough money for law school and tropical vacations and trendy clothing, we expect Uncle San to cough up nine dollars a month for birth control.

Let's re-focus.  We got nothing against women who stay on the pill.  When I was single I'd have been glad to meet up with her.  Really glad.  No one is sexualizing herself except herself.  And good for her.  You go, girl.  She appears to be feisty, in reasonably good health, experienced, and she definitely comes off as though she likes it rough and often.  Nothing wrong with that.  What we're ridiculing, though, is her cause.  Well, actually, all we're ridiculing is her speech.  It was a shameless, grievance-obsessed, bitter diatribe.

Still, I'd probably do her.   ;)



Title: Re: The Good Post Gallery
Post by: sjoyce on September 06, 2012, 02:26:28 pm
What a joke country we live in if not agreeing that the capital of Israel is Jerusalem instead of Tel Aviv [makes you] anti-Israel or anti-Semitic. Or not putting God in the platform of a major political party that has members of many religions is somehow anti-God.


Title: Re: The Good Post Gallery
Post by: SPC on September 07, 2012, 02:36:43 am
I think part of the reason these people might feel this way is because when you look at the fundamentals, Israel was a really really stupid idea. The premise that one group has a right to some land because their ancestors lived there 2000 years ago is quite laughable. That's why I've always considered Zionism as absurd as the drivel written by Ayn Rand and about equal in what value it brings to public discourse.

And it doesn't help that Israel was founded by some pretty disgusting people, can anyone explain what makes the Irgun and Lehi in any way better than Hamas?


Title: Re: The Good Post Gallery
Post by: shua on September 10, 2012, 01:06:14 pm
The underlying issue is the number of significant digits in the result. In general, you only report a result with a precision on the same order of magnitude as your error, ie. if the result has an error of ±3 points, they would report down to the 1% digit. This convention is not quite practiced universally and some people prefer to include one extra digit so you know if a result is 44.6 ±3 or 45.2 ± 3 instead of saying just 45 ± 3, but it looks weird.

In polling, I think it becomes a bit trivial to include extra digits because even the statistical uncertainty in the measurement has additional errors built in from various biases that make polling results fairly unreliable in general.

When a polling company does this it makes it look like they missed the 10th grade lesson on sig figs or at the very least are using a non-standard form of notation.


Title: Re: The Good Post Gallery
Post by: A Strange Reflection on September 10, 2012, 02:37:41 pm
Let's all be honest with ourselves here -- the only reason BRTD made this poll is to get a favourable result for a "Christian" party.
The same way he polls opebo vs. any number of horrible people, or Jesus vs. NYJew.

Presumably, he wants the illusion that people agree with him on everything.


Title: Re: The Good Post Gallery
Post by: Saturday's Cab Ride Home on September 10, 2012, 02:56:52 pm
...though certain of his beliefs, such as his support for animal rights... are problematic.

as I believe I said in IRC, Vosem appears so absurd because he explicitly states what are meant only to be the implicit tenets of neoliberal ideology.


Title: Re: The Good Post Gallery
Post by: Lief 🐋 on September 10, 2012, 05:13:45 pm
The rhetoric of reform applied to an agenda of destruction is at the heart of the neo-liberal project.


Title: Re: The Good Post Gallery
Post by: Saturday's Cab Ride Home on September 11, 2012, 10:01:57 pm
This is old, but I found it after looking up some things after the debate on teacher's salaries, and thought it was great. krazen should take notice:

There are various things one might mean by "overpaid", depending on the standard to which the pay is being compared, and it is worth getting clear on which one we are talking about. In particular, one could be "overpaid":

1. compared to the actual pay obtained by the people in question on the actually existing market, with all the regulations and market distortions that are in place.

2. compared to some external moral standard of the value of the work, which might include non-monetary values.

3. compared to the pay that the work would receive if the entire world were an ECO101-style model free market, with no regulations limiting individual exchange at all.


By standard (1), obviously no profession is underpaid or overpaid, since, tautologically, people are paid what they are paid.

By standard (2), teachers are not overpaid, and CEO's and athletes are, IMHO. Of course others might differ on the underlying philosophical questions.

By standard (3), we are pretty much all overpaid, since the standard of living would be much lower if certain welfare-enhancing medical and technological improvements that depended on co-ordinated state intervention had never occurred. The yellow avatar types would disagree with this, based on what is in my view a naive understanding of the history, psychology and biology of the species, though I generally get the sense people like Gustaf and Franzl wouldn't disagree.

However, when I encounter people claiming that union workers are overpaid, they generally seem to be using none of these criteria. Rather - though it usually isn't explicit - they seem to be using a sort of strange mix of (1) and (3), where we apply (1) to the rest of the economy, keeping fixed the regulations that allow the economy to function as it normally does, but apply (3) to the specific transaction involving the labour of the workers in question, discarding the actually existing labour procedures in favour of individual exchanges between individual workers and their employer. By this standard, yes, teachers are a bit overpaid, as are all union workers, and the more left-wing interlocutor shouldn't deny it, since to do so would be to deny that there is a union wage premium that is advantageous to the worker. But why we should take this funny combination of (1) and (3) as a basis for actual public policy decisions is not clear to me.


Title: Re: The Good Post Gallery
Post by: Platypus on September 12, 2012, 09:02:38 am
Honestly, my favourite post in years:

Are you the troll guy Carl who only posts bad economic numbers?


Title: Re: The Good Post Gallery
Post by: Saturday's Cab Ride Home on September 12, 2012, 11:06:51 am
Honestly, my favourite post in years:

Are you the troll guy Carl who only posts bad economic numbers?

That should also go to the Sulfur Mine.


Title: Re: The Good Post Gallery
Post by: SPC on September 12, 2012, 03:28:03 pm
Desperate campaign is desperate.

ETA: Also, the idea of Mitt Romney as Commander in Chief is quickly moving from laughable to terrifying.

Remeber what I said about his inane comment on the number of ships in the US Navy?  I knew way back then this guy should not be given the nuclear button.  Private equity guys should not be in charge of the military.

Quote from: Romney
I’m outraged by the attacks on American diplomatic missions in Libya and Egypt and by the death of an American consulate worker in Benghazi. It’s disgraceful that the Obama Administration’s first response was not to condemn attacks on our diplomatic missions, but to sympathize with those who waged the attacks.

What an idiot.

Quote from: cbsnews.com
"Do you realize our Navy is now smaller than any time since 1917? Our Air Force is older and smaller than any time since it was founded in 1947," Romney said. "We have always, since the days of FDR, we've had the capacity to fight two wars at a time, not that we wanted to, but we wanted to have that kind of safety and capacity to defend ourselves. This president is changing that policy saying, 'Oh no, we'll only be able to fight one war at a time.'"

PolitFact said each of the final four years under George W. Bush's term as president saw lower levels of active ships than any of the three years under President Obama. It also said that his statement about the size of the Air Force was credible, but military experts agree that counting the number of ships or aircraft is not a good measurement of defense strength because their capabilities have increased dramatically in recent decades (http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-57367919-503544/romney-makes-debatable-claims-about-military/).

I think Castro summed it up best...

(http://i42.tinypic.com/2h2p4di.jpg) (http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-202_162-57365991/castro-gop-primary-a-competition-of-idiocy/)

I was concerned about Cain, Bachmann, or Palin getting the nuclear button but it appears they were just a distraction to keep us from realizing the true lunacy of Mitt Romney.


Title: Re: The Good Post Gallery
Post by: Saturday's Cab Ride Home on September 14, 2012, 12:50:17 pm
Nobody "wins" in the 2012 board. Humanity loses.


Title: Re: The Good Post Gallery
Post by: Come grasp the mighty avatar of our admin on September 15, 2012, 01:35:53 pm
Just want to let you know I checked and Bin Laden is still dead.
...and Bush is still more responsible for killing him than Barrack Obama.  I guess I'm missing how getting a phone call on a golf course and saying "yea go ahead and kill the #1 sworn enemy of this country" is an "achievement" or deserving of merit, but than I remember that Bill Clinton and Joe Biden wouldn't say "yes I authorize" for some incomprehensible reason.  So, BO had the ability to say "yes" when 95% of the country would/could do the same thing.  WOW, does he dress himself too?     
There was only a 45% or so chance he was there. The President had to make a decision regarding whether to send American troops into a sovereign middle eastern state for an enemy we weren't even sure was there. You'd all blame him for him as a failure if Bin Laden hadn't been there, so why not give him credit for making the tough decision that proved correct?
It wasn't a tough decision, There was more than a 45% chance ( some reports vary), We have had people in Pakistan for decades now, I wouldn't blame a failed military operation on the president if he didn't do anything wrong/unreasonable (some might, but that's kind of irrelevant).  I'm GIVING HIM CREDIT for saying "yes I authorize", which is all he did.  Bush did far more work and Obama campaigned on reversing the Bush policies that were critical to making it happen.  I also give Obama credit for violating his stupid campaign promises, but I hold him accountable for lying.  You got about 1 out of 6 right :-)          
President Bush, god bless 'em, said in 2003 that he had no idea where bin laden was and that he didn't worry about him. Bush shut down the CIA team that was working to find him. One of Obama's first commands in office was to get any intelligence on the whereabouts of Bin Laden. He didn't lie either. In fact, back in 2007 he said that if Bin Laden was hiding in another sovereign state, like Pakistan, he would authorize going in and getting him. And he was relentlessly attacked on it by then Senators Clinton and McCain.


Title: Re: The Good Post Gallery
Post by: Lief 🐋 on September 15, 2012, 08:42:58 pm
In all the areas where it isn't doing as well (low aggregate demand, income inequality, poverty, full employment, poor infrastructure) are areas that Democrats have been saying are problems for decades, even though Democrats have been constrained by things like the overton window and the GOP from doing very much about it. In all the areas where it is doing well, they're areas that Republicans have said for decades are the standard-bearer of a good economy: low taxes, thriving companies, wealth for the rich "job creators", low CPI inflation, cutting government spending and employment, cutting union membership and power. Republicans are in the strange position of trying to denigrate an economy where the most potent chief complaints are those coming from the left of the Democratic Party.


Title: Re: The Good Post Gallery
Post by: opebo on September 18, 2012, 07:17:02 am
WOW! This is pretty bad. Now it is absolute key for the Obama camp NOT to overplay it. Let the media do their thing on this. The Obama camp should not want to get swamped in a "class warfare" debate here. They should simply point out how Obama wants to be president of ALL americans, not just half of America, how Obama doesn't think it is fair to say that senior citizens make unreasonable claims on the government, etc.


Title: Re: The Good Post Gallery
Post by: Saturday's Cab Ride Home on September 19, 2012, 11:48:06 am
One does suspect that a Carter grandson, if 'unemployed', is so by choice, Politico.  After all Romney's never worked a day in his life either.


Title: Re: The Good Post Gallery
Post by: Trounce-'em Theresa on September 19, 2012, 04:42:20 pm
I think that for Scott Brown, Romney's remarks may have been a personal hit.

Remember that this is a guy who grew up in a poor family that was on food stamps at various points. The problem is that Scott Brown, like most Americans, views those types of assistance as a facilitator to moving out of poverty (as he obviously did). Mitt Romney basically said Scott Brown's family, who would have been 47-percents when he was growing up, were lazy self-victimizers with no sense of personal responsibility. Susana Martinez comes from a similar background and had a similar reaction.

There is nothing aspirational about the GOP platform anymore. Forty years ago, it was "The Democrats are the party of handouts. We're the party of giving a helping hand." They don't want to do that anymore. Their only message to the poor is that they don't pay enough in taxes.


Title: Re: The Good Post Gallery
Post by: Landslide Lyndon on September 20, 2012, 05:47:31 am
I love how Rasmussen's own methodology even openly admits their polls are garbage nowadays, if you just read between the lines ever so slightly.



Here's how a Rasmussen poll is made!!!

  • Poll conducted during a four-hour period of a single weekday evening
  • short time means no calling back any numbers
  • Robot voice asking questions and telling you to press buttons
  • Questions asked of whoever picked up the phone; could easily be small child
  • Calls are only made to landlines
  • Instead of, you know, calling cell phones, they channel inspiration from Zogby: "To reach those who have abandoned traditional landline telephones,  Rasmussen Reports uses an online survey tool to interview randomly selected participants from  a demographically diverse panel."

    Let's see. At this point, they have data showing which buttons were pressed by whoever they called that evening who happened to be home, who decided to answer that phone call, and who didn't hang up when they heard a recording on the line. They add this data to internet surveys taken by people who deign to sign up to be part of the "demographically diverse" Rasmussen internet panel and trust none of these internet folks lied about any of their personal information.

    But wait, now the fun part!

  • The sample isn't representative in the slightest, so it gets adjusted to match census data for the area!
  • Still not representative enough, so it gets adjusted again to match voter registration records!
  • Still not good enough, so it goes through a likely voter screen! Only the people who pushed the correct buttons when the robot voice asked them about their voting habits make it through this part!
  • Almost good, but still one problem- it has to be adjusted for partisanship! This means they use the magical dynamic weighting system which uses "the state’s voting history, national trends, and recent polling in a particular state or geographic area" to figure out exactly how to BS where the numbers should have been if this was anything resembling a scientific poll.

    So, to recap: Have robots blanket the states with calls for a few hours while everyone's out eating dinner or watching football, record the answers from whoever does pick up the phone, mix that data with some totally legit internet surveys, arbitrarily readjust the numbers four times in a row, and presto! You have your very own Rasmussen poll!

    (source: http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/about_us/methodology)


Title: Re: The Good Post Gallery
Post by: GM R2D2 on September 21, 2012, 05:24:13 pm
I think we've got a gem of a poster here.

Other: The Joker from The Dark Knight

His nihilistic tendencies were so vicious he was quite the disturbing character, and how he was portrayed by Heath Ledger was so insanely immaculate that I don't think any fictional villain, ever, will match up to his version of The Joker.

And, as much as I obviously disagree with his nihilism, violence, etc - he makes you think, because he does make an interesting philosophical point.  When talking to Harvey Dent in the hospital scene, he notes how if things like soldiers dying or a gangbanger getting shot happens... nobody freaks, because it's all part of the plan.  But that he threatened to kill the Mayor, that's not part of the plan - and it freaks everyone out.

I actually find a bit of truth in that observation.  One example, sadly, is the Colorado shooting (where the guy who did it said he was the Joker).  The media (as they should have) freaked out, this wasn't supposed to happen.  Yet I see no reporting on the atrocious conditions in diamond mining, sweatshops, economic destitution at the stranglehold of mega-corporations in the third world... those are all normal, continuing things.  But when out-of-the-ordinaries happen... the Colorado shooting, the Haiti earthquake... that's when people care.  Clearly I disagree with how The Joker chooses to respond to that reality, but he makes an interesting point.

A villain who can come off as so chaotically evil, who can also make you honestly think is a well developed, well rounded character.  He'll truly never be beat in this category.


Title: Re: The Good Post Gallery
Post by: Trumpism: Turn the dial all the way up and pull off the knob on September 22, 2012, 06:15:05 pm
Spanish Moss is less than a 100 posts in, and is already one of my favorite posters.


Title: Re: The Good Post Gallery
Post by: GM R2D2 on September 22, 2012, 06:46:33 pm
Spanish Moss is less than a 100 posts in, and is already one of my favorite posters.

Yep. For a socialist, he's awesome ;)


Title: Re: The Good Post Gallery
Post by: sjoyce on September 22, 2012, 08:14:56 pm
Incidentally, if anyone here does want to run for office - as a career move rather than as a standard bearer for the cause (whatever it might be) - then be really, really, really careful what you post.


Title: Re: The Good Post Gallery
Post by: TJ in Wisco on September 22, 2012, 09:46:54 pm
SIMFANLAND: A PHOTO ESSAY

(http://www.weblogcartoons.com/cb/houses-from-train.jpg)
Where I live

(http://graphics7.nytimes.com/images/section/learning/general/onthisday/big/1216_big.gif)
Morning paper - text heavy, government owned

(http://diettogo.com/data/fe/file/promo/breakfast.jpg)
Breakfast at a local café

(http://www.themullettfamily.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/04/street-car.jpg)
My morning commute

(http://structural-engineers.regionaldirectory.us/structural-engineer-720.jpg)
Typical "middle class" job

(http://images.businessweek.com/ss/07/03/0329_labor/image/mexico.jpg)
Typical "peon" job

(http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/2009/12/24/health/24cnd-health-blog/blogSpan.jpg)
Work is a bit different for "full citizens"

(http://scotthughes.biz/police/policebrutalitywall.JPG)
Whatever the case, you'd best show up on time...

(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/e/e9/Fort_Worth_Library_Computer_Lab.jpg)
The internet - censored, available only in public locations

(http://betablog.amnestyusa.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/10/occupy-wall-street1.jpg)
A common sight in the early days...

(http://ww2.hdnux.com/photos/14/70/75/3379065/3/628x471.jpg)
...but after this...

(http://www.profimedia.si/photo/empty-public-square/profimedia-0081438893.jpg)
...we began to see more of this

(http://the.honoluluadvertiser.com/dailypix/2006/Aug/27/FPI608270340V2_b.jpg)
Always on

(http://static8.businessinsider.com/image/4f6c7adaeab8eacf14000008/mali-military-coup-eu-aid.jpg)
Some people fear this...

(http://yaledailynews.media.clients.ellingtoncms.com/img/croppedphotos/2010/05/15/croom_shaws-18_t640.jpg?a6ea3ebd4438a44b86d2e9c39ecf7613005fe067)
...and others fear this...

(http://catflag.files.wordpress.com/2012/07/military-coup-image-from-bbc-news.jpg)
...and Simfan fears this...

(http://news.discovery.com/history/2011/12/18/vaclav-havel-big-pic.jpg)
...but he should really fear people like this



Title: Re: The Good Post Gallery
Post by: Trounce-'em Theresa on September 22, 2012, 09:56:50 pm
The fact that he's more liberal on an issue than Obama (marijuana) scares me.

Jesus warned about people like him... false prophets.  His attitude is judgmental, and this isn't because of the stances he takes (one could see homosexuality as a sin, for example, but not have this essence of judgmentalism - I've met Christians that fit what I'm describing).  He uses his position for wealth.  I say this not to judge - this is observational.  We're all imperfect, but being in the position he's in, it comes across to me that he's really betraying the essence of the Gospels.


Title: Re: The Good Post Gallery
Post by: Averroës on September 24, 2012, 05:54:27 pm
I know that you're an uneducated doofus who lives in a bubble, but I don't think you really understands the implications of posting this picture. I don't think this thread is about award-winning photographs of the Vietnam War, and your post wasn't about how the picture is an excellent example of war photography. I suggest that you re-read your own post, and re-evaluate the use of that disturbing picture to accompany your comments. I also find it really disturbing that people who have an ideology markedly different than yours are to be considered "enemies" and that these "enemies" should be shot.


Title: Re: The Good Post Gallery
Post by: A Strange Reflection on September 25, 2012, 02:08:42 pm
This might be long and rambling and aimless and not really my usual style but I'm just going to write what comes to mind and leave it at that.

Yelnoc, you're thinking of this the wrong way. Ultimately I don't think you're that far from what Antonio said. You seem to think that "they" would need to actively engage in something quantifiable to keep people down. You don't need to do that. I'm reminded of Tony Benn's interview in Sicko (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9LnY-jy_cE0) where he talks about how democracy is inherently dangerous to elite interests, but only if people are educated and confident, only when they believe they can make a difference if they really try. Otherwise it can just as easily be used against the general interest as anything else.

What Benn was specifically talking about there was that "the system" is benefited by the fear of (or presence of) shackling debt because it makes people grow pessimistic and hopeless, and pessimistic and hopeless people don't vote, but his general point was simply that you don't have to literally put your boot on someone's neck to keep them down, simply demoralize them, pit the lower classes against each other, make them think they have no choice but to continue following orders and following a ruthlessly capitalist system and the focus isn't on how the system is screwing them, it's how the immigrant is why they're losing, how the gay man is why they're losing, how the black man is how they're losing.

We have a 24/7/365 media system pounding accepted, safe, mainstream, patty-cake mentalities into peoples' heads. People need leadership or people that separate from the path to open their minds and make them seek out new ideas. People need leadership to demand more from their politicians, or to stand up and make their voice heard, or to demand better lives, but if that leadership and that recursive, self-reinforcing media system spends all day and night talking about those evil protesters, blocking the streets as they fight for lower tuition, people become easily fooled into hating those protesters for disrupting their day rather than the government or the institution that is screwing a generation with greater debt.

We have a society based on convenience and the establishment exists to maintain that convenience. 9/11 happens and it's not a call to arms, or a call to sacrifice for the greater good of society, we're told to put a smile on and go shopping. We have an ostensibly left-of-center President who has only sought policies that go a half step to accomplishing one goal or another with a minimal disruption to the existing social, economic, and political systems, and a right of center party that only seems to further demolish trust in existing institutions only to further demoralize the voting population.

There's a reason America will never have anything close to the alleged Business Plot (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Business_plot) ever again; you don't need to be aggressive to control society, it's happened over the course of decades and we all let it happen because most people became selfish, apathetic, convenience-addicted consumerists and that's what was intended. People are happily useful idiots of the elite; there's plenty of them on this very forum. You don't need to assassinate popular politicians, you just buy off three politicians behind closed doors and block that politicians agenda. You don't need to censor information these days, buy your own newspaper, your very own Fox News, hell, just get your own blog, spread the lie you need to spread, and you automatically win. Combating lies is a hundred times as hard as combating truth, because you have to grab people's attention for more than just a single line.

Beet is right with his last line, about how this question is damn near an infinite regression of problem stemming from problem stemming from another problem, but the simplest place to start is to stop lathering in misery and start caring again. The Montreal student protests were eye opening to me in one respect, it showed there's a place where people still care about these things. If they had simply accepted unwarranted tuition fee hikes, they would still be stuck with them. No one would've stopped to think about it, and Quebec would probably still be in the waning days of a horribly corrupt Liberal government.

But people protested to cause disruption, with the ultimate goal of sparking a new election. They weren't causing havoc just for the fun of it (okay, perhaps a small percentage were, as they always do in these things) but rather they were protesting because they wanted to go vote for something different. They still believed in the institutions of Quebec government and wanted to use their vote as a vehicle of change, and 75% of people went and voted, and those students got the tuition fee freeze. They didn't wallow in misery, they didn't make ironic comments about it and then go booze the night away, they got on the street, bitched, and then voted.

So as much as I agree with people like you on these things up to a point, as much as I agree with people like Beet, Fezzy, even Tweed, about how much things suck, and how deeply screwed we are for the foreseeable future, and how broken American society is right now, you ain't solving any of it by thinking you're insignificant, that your vote doesn't matter, that it's hopeless and you should just go and (in Beet's words) "watch TV while eating junk food instead." Where I part with people on this is that you're not impressing anyone by talking about how doomed we all are. I don't have all the answers, and I don't think there's any one thing that's causing "the problem" or helping "the system." But a good place to start would be for us all to recognize who is actually screwing things up (it's not the illegals or big gubmit), and what can actually help us (it isn't a tax cut), and then to care enough to do something when we have the chance. (And realizing that you have to occasionally vote for a guy that kinda sucks against someone who really sucks in the meantime.)


Title: Re: The Good Post Gallery
Post by: Scott on September 26, 2012, 12:23:29 pm
I understand alot of parents wish to protect their children by saying 'they are too young to know' when it comes to a variety of issues, but alot of transgender people and other LGBT individuals if asked as an adult will tell you that they knew who they were from a young age whether it's 5 or 14. A child will have great difficulty expressing who they are (and who they are not) but when it is expressed it has to be listened to. Now of course some children just play dress and roleplay and it all means nothing in the end so there has to be a degree of sensitivity. Just because it's a complex issue shouldn't mean it is simply ignored until the child is entering puberty (which psychologically can be a difficult time) or an adult. This girl will be much happier as a result.


Title: Re: The Good Post Gallery
Post by: Mechaman on September 26, 2012, 01:13:17 pm
Just why are execrable opinions infractible, outside advocating violence, blatant bigotry, and so forth? There seems to be some movement afoot to start chopping off at least one side of the extended tail of the bell curve. What am I missing here? Is this site just supposed to be for semi reasonable to reasonable people, or harmless people, or people whose eccentricities amuse, rather than annoy? Are we getting a bit too much into the "thought police" mode?  

I say all of this not being a big Naso fan, mostly because he does not engage in debate. He's the star - we're the audience. There is a bit of a narcissistic strain there maybe. But  that is just a matter of style.

Maybe we should worry a bit more about what we contribute around here, and a bit less what others do. And maybe that includes myself. This thread causes me to ponder that a bit.

Now if Naso starts calling liberals around here of the type he disdains, Commies, all bets are off. It's one thing to lazily and ludicrously in self indulgent speculation drop an erroneous/vile label on a vast swath of the anonymous; quite another to do it with someone you know up close and personal who is not a public figure.

Oh the photo. I think it a stretch to suggest he's advocating the murder of liberals. I think he was trying to emphasize his opinion of Commies. And there is nothing about Naso to suggest he favors mass genocide based on political views. It was clumsy, sure, not funny, and while he may celebrate the incident of the photo, beyond the murder itself, it led to great tragedy. So throw ignorance into the mix. That is not infractable either.

Naso, if you read this, think about it. Your hit and run tactics aren't working for you very well, when you want to be edgy. The natives are restless.


Title: Re: The Good Post Gallery
Post by: Simfan34 on September 26, 2012, 04:31:34 pm
A number of posters in this thread have been punked. They have so filtered objective reality through their political biases that they could not notice an obvious satire.

The article is on to something, however. Since Watergate, every Republican candidate running on a conservative platform [Reagan, Bush I 1998, and Bush II 2000] has won, and, every Republican candidate running as a moderate, or running on a moderate record has lost, with the sole exception of Bush II in 2004 whom had the good fortune of Osama Bin Laden endorsing his opponent just before the election. If Romney pursues a moderate strategy, he will suffer the fate as every other moderate. If that is the case, some folks in the Republican party had better step forward and speak up for conservatism.

Bush ran in 2000 on "compassionate conservatism," which was a far more watered-down version of conservatism than Romney has been forced to pursue thanks to Gingrich and Santorum. The campaign originally wanted to emulate that rhetoric, but Gingrich/Santorum forced them into a corner. We both want the same thing, but I warned you months ago about the implications of Gingrich/Santorum specifically with regards to female voters. Don't pull the "Romney's not conservative enough" card because he is running to the right of  every presidential contender since Reagan (with the possible exception of Bush in 2004)

Shocker, I know.


Title: Re: The Good Post Gallery
Post by: A Strange Reflection on September 26, 2012, 06:56:45 pm
Yeah, I'm really amazed.


Title: Re: The Good Post Gallery
Post by: A Strange Reflection on September 26, 2012, 07:15:19 pm
The Conservative movement has basically spent a generation now building and existing solely within their own bubble, where they only listen to each other, only talk to each other, only listens to religion against science, only watch Fox News, only read the books the Conservative business empire puts out, and now, only apparently want to listen to their polls. It's become a movement that openly denies reality simply because they don't like what they see; it used to be funny, but it's gotten kind of sad and dangerous.


Title: Re: The Good Post Gallery
Post by: A Strange Reflection on September 29, 2012, 02:00:49 pm
Barack Obama's "claim to fame" is that he rescued the United States economy, reinvigorated the American auto industry, and ordered the mission that killed Osama bin Laden. Stop it with this nonsense. People are not voting for Obama because he's a cool black JFK. They're voting for him because the Republican party and its standard bearer are repugnant and hold most of the country in disdain, and at the end of the day Obama is a hard-working guy who's generally done the best anyone could do and they trust him to keep working to make their lives better.


Title: Re: The Good Post Gallery
Post by: © tweed on September 30, 2012, 01:29:59 pm
I didn't look it up, but are these in reality the Republican respondents' sample from their Florida poll? Because they seem awfully similar to what the makeup of the Republican Party is - 85% white, less than 1 in 10 under the age of 30, 53% male, etc.


Title: Re: The Good Post Gallery
Post by: Marokai Backbeat on October 02, 2012, 03:28:36 am
I don't see how anyone who calls him/herself left-wing can support reactionary, neoliberal forces who want to re-centralize control of the country with the wealthy elite and foreign corporations instead of Chavez. Yeah, he's not perfect on civil liberties and human rights, but he's hardly the first and he won't be the last Latin American president who isn't. You need to remember that the people that are working against him have been trying to delegitimize him and his supporters since he first came to power, up to and including literally overthrowing him in a military coup at one point. It's not like he's some murderous dictator; at worst there's a small amount of election fraud (but he still has the support of the majority of the Venezuelan people) and some press restrictions (on, let's remember, a faction that led an armed military coup against him after he was twice democratically elected by a wide margin).

If the neoliberal opposition ever came to power, there is absolutely no question that they would be just as bad or worse when it comes to using the government to silence and oppress Chavez and his supporters. Their history of opposition to him proves as much. Their first two attempts to remove him from power were anti-democratic and done outside legitimate means. First there was the 2002 military coup, which resulted in the forces that took over abolishing the constitution and immediately adopting totalitarian control of the country, leading to massive protests that forced them to allow Chavez back to power. Then in 2003-2004 there was a "general strike" at the state oil company, not of workers, but of the management, in an attempt to sabotage an industry that is crucial to the Venezuelan economy and weaken Chavez's position in the process. This extra-legal, anti-democratic attempt to remove Chavez failed as well. Only then, on their third try, did the rich elite turn to democratic means, a recall referendum that they lost overwhelmingly.

If you want a real example of political conflict between the 1% and the 99%, there is none greater than the fight that is going on in Venezuela. On the one hand, you have a neo-imperialist upper elite that has held a stranglehold on the country's economy for decades, profiting off the sale of the country's resources to the west while the majority of the country toiled in endless poverty. On the other you have Chavez and his supporters, mostly the poor and racial/indigenous minorities who for hundreds of years have had little to no say in how their country is governed. Is Chavez perfect? No. Have his policies fixed all the problems of social and economic inequality that have plagued the country since its inception? No. Would I prefer that he have greater respect for civil liberties? Yes. But at the end of the day, the choice is not between Chavez and some hypothetical perfect Third Way left-winger. It's between Chavez and the champions of an autocratic wealthy elite that has controlled the country for most its history.

I'll end by recounting what former Brazilian president Lula da Silva, a leader who I think all on the left and center-left can admire and support with few reservations, said in his endorsement of Chavez's re-election:

Quote
Our countries are still marked by poverty and inequality. We require more economic growth, social policies and structural reforms to build the developed, fair and fraternal society we long for. In everything that we have done up until now, which is a lot, the Forum and parties of the Forum have played a significant role, which could be even more important if we maintain our main characteristic: unity in the face of adversity.

I would like to say good bye adding that I would really like to be there. Not only to be part of the delegation, the Workers' Party delegation, but also to give a warm embrace to comrade Hugo Chavez. With Chavez's leadership, the venezuelan people has made extraordinary gains. The popular classes have never ever been treated with such respect, love and dignity. Those conquests must be preserved and strengthened.

Chavez, count on me, count on the PT (Brazilian Workers' Party), count on the solidarity and support of each left-wing militant, each democrat and each Latin American. Your victory will be ours. A strong embrace, a fraternal embrace and thanks comrade for everything you have done for Latin America.


Title: Re: The Good Post Gallery
Post by: opebo on October 02, 2012, 11:22:09 am
He's ahead in spite of being a black.


Title: Re: The Good Post Gallery
Post by: Marokai Backbeat on October 02, 2012, 07:33:44 pm
Take heed. This is what tenbatsu for decades of profligacy looks like.

Only neoliberalism can save Greece now.

At first I thought this was a sarcastic joke, but then I remembered you're the guy who actually unironically refers to himself as a neoliberal. Please take note of a few things:

1. "Neoliberalism" carries very negative connotations; no serious politician or organization (outside of a couple of DC think-tanks in the early 1980's) has ever referred to themselves as a neoliberal. Its only used in political discouse to deride one's opponents.

2. Neoliberalism isn't really a political philosophy. It's used to describe the ideology behind internationally-imposed austerity programs, budget cuts, and trade liberalization measures. The term originated to describe the "Washington Consensus" implemented throughout the Americas by the IMF and IADB in the aftermath of the Latin American debt crisis. The strict mandates were done because it was the only way international banks would feel secure enough to get their money back from these short-term emergency loans coordinated by the IMF. Even at it's root neoliberalism has nothing to do with promoting economic growth, it's just a way to force a country to cut back on spending enough that international lenders didn't have to face a default. The other enforced reforms which sought to deregulate and liberalize the "recipient" nation's economy were at best misguided efforts to promote long-term economic growth to even out the nation's economy by making up for the fact that the immediate economic "readjustment" would be disasterous. Even then, it hurt more than it helped and plummetted many nations into intense socioeconomic instability.

3.It's worth pointing out that the only nation in South America to make it through the Washington Consensus mostly unscathed was Chile, because their dictator forced the reforms through at gunpoint, and they got an early enough start on liberalization so the IMF was never able to Chile to sell off the extremely lucurative government-owned copper mines. Colombia also made it through mostly okay thanks to the tons of cocaine money constantly entering their economy as well as the constant blank checks sent from the US to help Colombia fight the spread of communism and such. Besides that, it was disasterous.

4. This social and economic unrest is BECAUSE of neoliberalism. Greece doesn't have an oppressive dictator and moneymaking nationalized industries like Chile did, and Greece doesn't have a superpower sugardaddy and a very profitable black market export like Colombia did. The problems Greece suffers from currently are virtually identical to those caused by the Washington Consensus elsewhere. If a nation is forced to cut back on spending so much that the police can't even operate effectively, and shrink social safety nets to the point that the retired and the unemployed can't even put food on the table, things like this happen. Neoliberalism is quite obviously part of the problem, not the solution. 


Title: Re: The Good Post Gallery
Post by: Saturday's Cab Ride Home on October 02, 2012, 08:12:32 pm
I came here just to add that BK post.


Title: Re: The Good Post Gallery
Post by: Oakvale on October 02, 2012, 08:23:54 pm
Someone should cc: that to the Sulfur Mine, too.


Title: Re: The Good Post Gallery
Post by: Saturday's Cab Ride Home on October 03, 2012, 12:05:08 am
This also deserves some recognition:

Would Americans want Puerto Rico to be state however? I think there has been little discussion what this would actually mean, in practice, if it were to happen except for Rick Santorum, who basically gave reasons why I doubt most Americans would support statehood for PR if it actually came to it.

If PR were to ask for statehood, it would be extremely difficult politically to deny it. It would, in fact, require taking an outright anti-Hispanic stand, with little possibility of any sort of a fudge - not something one would necessarily want to do.

It is further complicated by the fact that within PR it is the relatively pro-Republican PNP that's pro-statehood, while the outright pro-Democratic PDP prefers the status quo. While PNP is not exactly the local affiliate of the Republican party (it does have a pro-Dem wing, though that one is relatively weak right now), nearly all the local Republicans are part of it. If the national Republican party opposes statehood, it would amount to a complete destruction of the local Republican organization on the island. As Puerto Ricans are US citizens (something that, in the short term is not even possible to change if PR declares independence), they can and do vote when they find themselves living on the mainland.  Oposing statehood would, basically, tell those of them who still vote Republican that their party does not want their vote - in those many words and, once again, without much realistic possibility of a fudge.

It would even be pretty hard to make a principled anti-statehood argument in a way that wouldn't alienate at least some normally pro-Republican Cuban-Americans: it wouldll all come down to the issues of language and culture that Cubans themselves hold dear, and the arguments would undoubtedly degenerate into outright anti-Hispanic claims that would make a lot of people feel very unwelcome in that sort of a party. At that point, being a Hispanic (even Cuban) Republican would become a lot like being a gay Republican - not impossible, but not that easy or pleasant.

To sum up, if the Republican party openly opposes statehood, it would go a long way towards making sure that the Hispanic electorate converges to black levels of support for the Democrats. And, of course, when and if PR votes for statehood, Democrats themselves would have no incentive at all to oppose it. Hence, though a number of diehard anti-Hispanics can be counted on making a few passionate speaches, nobody who cares about national political implications would dare to do anything to prevent it happening.


Title: Re: The Good Post Gallery
Post by: Oldiesfreak1854 on October 03, 2012, 07:53:20 am
This also deserves some recognition:

Would Americans want Puerto Rico to be state however? I think there has been little discussion what this would actually mean, in practice, if it were to happen except for Rick Santorum, who basically gave reasons why I doubt most Americans would support statehood for PR if it actually came to it.

If PR were to ask for statehood, it would be extremely difficult politically to deny it. It would, in fact, require taking an outright anti-Hispanic stand, with little possibility of any sort of a fudge - not something one would necessarily want to do.

It is further complicated by the fact that within PR it is the relatively pro-Republican PNP that's pro-statehood, while the outright pro-Democratic PDP prefers the status quo. While PNP is not exactly the local affiliate of the Republican party (it does have a pro-Dem wing, though that one is relatively weak right now), nearly all the local Republicans are part of it. If the national Republican party opposes statehood, it would amount to a complete destruction of the local Republican organization on the island. As Puerto Ricans are US citizens (something that, in the short term is not even possible to change if PR declares independence), they can and do vote when they find themselves living on the mainland.  Oposing statehood would, basically, tell those of them who still vote Republican that their party does not want their vote - in those many words and, once again, without much realistic possibility of a fudge.

It would even be pretty hard to make a principled anti-statehood argument in a way that wouldn't alienate at least some normally pro-Republican Cuban-Americans: it wouldll all come down to the issues of language and culture that Cubans themselves hold dear, and the arguments would undoubtedly degenerate into outright anti-Hispanic claims that would make a lot of people feel very unwelcome in that sort of a party. At that point, being a Hispanic (even Cuban) Republican would become a lot like being a gay Republican - not impossible, but not that easy or pleasant.

To sum up, if the Republican party openly opposes statehood, it would go a long way towards making sure that the Hispanic electorate converges to black levels of support for the Democrats. And, of course, when and if PR votes for statehood, Democrats themselves would have no incentive at all to oppose it. Hence, though a number of diehard anti-Hispanics can be counted on making a few passionate speaches, nobody who cares about national political implications would dare to do anything to prevent it happening.
I thought most Puerto Ricans opposed statehood because they think it means giving up their cultutre (which it doesn't).  If it weren't for that, I would support that, but if they don t support it, then I don't  I think the GOP needs to educate the Hispanic/Latino community about what we really believe.


Title: Re: The Good Post Gallery
Post by: Grumpy Santa on October 03, 2012, 11:45:24 am
Sicko.


Title: Re: The Good Post Gallery
Post by: Scott on October 04, 2012, 12:25:49 pm
I saw the debate last night - Romney was well-prepared, Obama clearly didn't want to be there - can't blame him, mind, it was his anniversary - and it's pretty clear that Romney "won".

More to the point, the media's been itching to move on from the stale "Romney's finished!" narrative and on to a much more exciting "it's a close race now!" one - even if Romney hadn't turned in a better performance, just holding his own on stage with the President would give him a decent bump and some favourable news cycles.

The debate was "do or die" for Romney, and he saved his campaign, but let's not act as if this is some amazing game changer. If Romney had lost the debate, he'd be finished, as is he's still in the race. That's undeniably good news for Romney, but I don't think it changes the fundamental picture of the election.

Republicans and Democrats, relax. Republicans - Romney had a polished performance, but didn't have any "Reaganesque" quips, and, Democrats -  Obama had a flat performance, but didn't make any gaffes and didn't lose any voters.

I'm rambling a bit, but I can't really handle the chaos around here today. ;)

2012 board after the debate:

(http://imageshack.us/a/img594/8515/emotderpd.gif)(http://imageshack.us/a/img594/8515/emotderpd.gif)(http://imageshack.us/a/img594/8515/emotderpd.gif)


Title: Re: The Good Post Gallery
Post by: Saturday's Cab Ride Home on October 04, 2012, 10:10:45 pm
Would recommend that non Jay Jay posters desist immediately, lest they want to waste a surprising amount of time arguing with a barrier made of fired clay.


Title: Re: The Good Post Gallery
Post by: opebo on October 05, 2012, 01:33:06 pm
Teacher had a point.


Title: Re: The Good Post Gallery
Post by: GM R2D2 on October 05, 2012, 04:03:04 pm
I know this is a story because it was a Romney shirt but please, for a moment, take politics out of this. We have a teacher here that asked students and fellow teachers to mock a student after already mocking the girl in class and intimidating her ("This is a Democratic school" Note the irony). Then, after being reprimanded, she blamed the girl by telling the class, "I'm not allowed to joke with you anymore." She then left the building.

This is someone who was trusted with teaching and supervising children. Everyone should be enraged by this behavior.


Title: Re: The Good Post Gallery
Post by: A Strange Reflection on October 05, 2012, 07:04:27 pm
Yeah, Phil is absolutely right here.


Title: Re: The Good Post Gallery
Post by: Clinton1996 on October 05, 2012, 10:18:42 pm
I am beginning to suspect that Beet is an accountant. No other explanation for such fear of tax reform...


Title: Re: The Good Post Gallery
Post by: shua on October 06, 2012, 02:08:31 am
great advice and perspective on driving:

As my dad says, "wait until its cheaper".  Its better to be wrong than dead right.


Title: Re: The Good Post Gallery
Post by: sentinel on October 06, 2012, 01:41:03 pm

 The whole unemployment numbers conspiracy thing makes me laugh.  My first politcal experience was working for a Democratic State Senate Campaign back in 1984.  Democrats as Mondale supporters were pretty vocal about how Reagen cooked the numbers, and that unemployment was actually much higher due to people leaving the workforce.  Republican Reagen supporters of course all pointed to the figures to show how great the economic recovery was.
  Fast forward 28 years and here we are again, only this time it is the Republicans crying conspiracy, and that the unemployment numbers are cooked while the Democrats are pointing to them saying that indeed the incumbent President is getting things done.
  Stay in politics long enough and you'll see both sides using the exact same argument at different times.  Be careful, your opponent's argument today may be your exact argument tomorrow!!

Ill_Ind


Title: Re: The Good Post Gallery
Post by: anvi on October 06, 2012, 01:46:02 pm
Hitting the virtual "Like" button for Ill_Ind's post above.


Title: Re: The Good Post Gallery
Post by: opebo on October 06, 2012, 03:39:00 pm
The things you find when you check out the second wave feminist subforum in DU (that basically everyone else hates, including other feminists. It's like their equivalent of the 2012 forum) I'd say "LOL" but it's so dumb it's not even funny.

You're acting as if this were an isolated, radical fringe. There are a lot more of these people than you'd think especially among the white upper class.
White upper class women don't have political views. They're too busy shopping and scolding the nanny. In any case, the man haters are usually the unattractive girls who haven't been treated right. Money has very little to do with it.


Title: Re: The Good Post Gallery
Post by: © tweed on October 06, 2012, 03:40:39 pm
though nothing's sexier than a very attractive heterosexual female man-hater.


Title: Re: The Good Post Gallery
Post by: opebo on October 06, 2012, 03:42:04 pm
though nothing's sexier than a very attractive heterosexual female man-hater.

Oh christ, go make a thread about your preversion somewhere else, and then we'll judge if any posts in it belong in the 'Good Gallery'.


Title: Re: The Good Post Gallery
Post by: © tweed on October 06, 2012, 03:47:43 pm
chill out bro.


Title: Re: The Good Post Gallery
Post by: opebo on October 06, 2012, 03:54:09 pm
chill out bro.

I was kidding, really.  I'd actually like to hear about your predilection, it sounds fascinating.  I'm usually most interested in things that aren't really my cup of tea.


Title: Re: The Good Post Gallery
Post by: anvi on October 06, 2012, 04:21:49 pm
...Romney said that Congress is going to make his implausible numbers add up. The same Comgress that can't even agree to a plan to cut the existing deficit by $4 trillion over 10 years is supposed to make Romneys additional $4.8 trillion in revenue loss budget neutral. There is no plan there, neither with Congress nor Romney. His confidence is unjustified. You need more than empty promises.


Title: Re: The Good Post Gallery
Post by: opebo on October 06, 2012, 04:35:33 pm
Quote
No, only whites can be racist, Reds.

Sig material.
Only majority and/or people with power can be racist. (South Africa and a couple other countries in it's vicinity are examples of minority racists).


Title: Re: The Good Post Gallery
Post by: Vote UKIP! on October 06, 2012, 05:08:48 pm
You all know what the sexual depravity of serving in a combat zone does to a man?It is sick to see this publicly displayed... it is between West and his wife. The last line there shows his commitment- many men desire any available woman when overseas for years, cut him some slack!

While I shudder at the thought of defending Allen West, of all people, I feel that these quotations would certainly be more reasonable in context. They'd been married for four years and the guy was suddenly half the world away from his wife, it's entirely natural that he'd try to keep their relationship's sexual intimacy alive even if the only available method of communication was this awkward and ham-fisted attempt at snail-mail handwritten sexting. The "porn star" line just sounds to me like typical mid-coitus dirty talk that plenty of healthy couples do, it only seems weird because it's written down. Hell, I know I'd be ashamed to read a transcript of things I've said during sex; West was probably just trying hard there and didn't realize how weird it probably sounded.

Also, the "non-negotiable" line and the bit about the two piece bathing suits sound like they were probably just attempts at flirtateous jokes. Really, I think things like this are going to sound much worse if someone just cherry-picks out a handful of lines to share. The only thing I find truly weird, personally, is the bit about God juxtaposed with sexual desire, but I feel even that's probably not too strange for a devoutly religious married couple (E.g., see Song of Solomon for the Bible's God-approved sexual content!).

But really, I don't think you can assume much about this couple's relationship based on a handful of lines from a letter. I kinda feel bad for them that something that was so obviously intended to be private somehow ends up on the Internet. It's also creepy that a south Florida gossip blogger somehow got his hands on a letter that was written a decade ago, but I suppose that's a different argument entirely.

Ultimately, while I really don't like Allen West at all- he's easily one of the country's worst sitting Congressmen and the very definition of a HP- I don't feel that this scandal is nearly as bad as it seems. And yeah, he's incredibly anti-women, but it's a stretch to relate this letter to his political beliefs.

Now, if you'll excuse me, the fact that I just typed something in support of Rep. West is giving me the overwhelming urge to curl up into the fetal position and shake uncontrollably.  I feel that I might have to donate my savings to Alan Grayson's campaign or something so I can even out my partisan karma.
:P         

These two. The first from someone who has actually been in combat, and the latter from someone criticizing the publicizing of such letters for moral reasons.


Title: Re: The Good Post Gallery
Post by: shua on October 07, 2012, 01:32:20 am
The OP mentioned something about communities who elect such representatives.  And that brought to mind something a friend told me a few months ago, not exactly about this but about a related topic, but his point I think was a good one, especially given my memories of growing up in the relatively small community that I did.  His point basically was that often it's not so much a question about what one believes, but about who one believes.  Communities are a collection of relationships between people, and when one grows up, as I did, in a small community, where maintaining good relationships is particularly important, one's default assumption is that the people around you have, for the most part, your best interests at heart.  So, when they tell you something, you are more likely to believe what they say precisely because of the weight the relationship carries.  By contrast, if you hear someone who is a complete stranger who claims things about truth and reality and whatnot that contravene what the people around you are saying, then, absent any independent way to assess the evidence, there is really no good reason for you to believe the stranger instead of the people in the community, since you don't know what sorts of intentions the stranger has in telling you what they do.  Separating oneself from all that is hard, it was certainly difficult for me--why exactly ought I to believe, for example, someone I've never met whose claims I'm reading rather than my own dad?  Reasons to believe are often very abstruse sorts of things, trust that one already has in intimates and community members one has long known is often far, far more compelling.


Title: Re: The Good Post Gallery
Post by: A Strange Reflection on October 07, 2012, 01:54:36 pm
I know that I'm in the minority on this, but I disagree with the widely-held premise that has developed post-debate that President Obama "lost" the debate. I know that this narrative has so taken hold that 40 years from now, it will probably be written about in history books as "Obama's horrible debate performance", but I have to interject here and say that I, for one, did not perceive the debate this way at all. I'm someone who is not "plugged in" to social media or the 24-7 cable news nonsense. I don't use social media. I don't even watch television. So that's where I'm coming from on this.

I watched the debate online, without any pre-debate or post-debate analysis from the talking heads who shape our opinions on these things. I watched the debate and thought that neither candidate won. I didn't think that it was a good or bad debate for either candidate, for the most part. To me, both candidates were fairly respectful of one another and the debate was largely uneventful. President Obama said the same things that he has been saying for the past four years. He didn't change his message. Mitt Romney promised a bunch of things that he will not deliver on, and is good at delivering canned, rehearsed lines in a way that appears to not be rehearsed (I don't consider that to be a good thing, by the way, I'm essentially saying that he's good at manipulating people).

I watched the debate without any influence from the talking heads, without seeing the candidates on high-definition TV, and came away thinking that neither candidate won. I honestly thought that, just based on appearances, that Mitt Romney looked kind of sickly and tired. While watching the debate, I thought that the media angle in the post-debate analysis would be about how sickly and tired Mitt Romney looked. Then I go online the next morning to check some news sites, and the whole thing is about how horrible President Obama did in the debate. It's just bizarre to me. I think it has to do with the media feedback loop and how the candidates looked on high-definition TV screens.

People are really very stupid when you get down to it. We are very influenced by appearances and superficialities, plus we follow the herd mentality. I saw a photo of the debate scene and noticed that Romney appeared to be slightly taller than Obama (this wasn't really apparent while watching online, but it might have been more apparent on TV). Romney projected "confidence" to the viewing audience by being slightly taller than Obama and by "looking at Obama more often than Obama looked at him" (I got that from a news "analysis" where it was remarked about how much Obama "looked down" during the debate, as if this is a valid reason to choose a candidate).

By superficially appearing to be more "confident" (kind of like a "confidence man" or "con man"?), Romney activated that part in the viewing audience's primitive brains that desires to be led by the "alpha male". Up until this point, Romney, in spite of his massive wealth and (somewhat) handsome appearance, had not been able to establish his "alpha status". I suspect that this came across much stronger on high-definition TVs than it did on grainy internet feeds like the one that I used to watch the debate.

But the bottom line is that based on what the candidates said, and not how they APPEARED, President Obama reaffirmed what he has been saying all along and did not change his message, and for that, I respect his position and his consistency. Romney, on the other hand, promised a bunch of things that he will not follow through on, and said things that are not logical or believable, like saying that he will cut the deficit without raising taxes and without cutting Medicare, but how? By cutting PBS. Yeah, right.


Title: Re: The Good Post Gallery
Post by: Averroës on October 07, 2012, 03:42:08 pm
I noticed in the extended debate from the other night she appeared to be a staunch believer in class struggle and conspiracy theories pertaining to members of the upper classes, the war in Iraq being primarily about oil, and had the same sort of cynicism and belligerent tone in her words on opponents as I remember from Dennis Kucinich. I am starting to get the impression that I agree with her on many issues but often reach those same policy prescriptions via very different lines of thought. Her negativity and at times militant vibe in general are, along with the aforementioned concerns, making me start to sympathize with dead0man's attitude here.

There is a very real chance I'll withdraw my support for her in favor of the Justice Party candidate by November.

for God's sake my man, third party candidacies aren't about the candidate herself but about building the strength of an organization.


Title: Re: The Good Post Gallery
Post by: opebo on October 08, 2012, 12:04:10 pm
Romney is no McCain and does not deserve these numbers... Frankly, Obama has been as committed to veterans as any of his predecessors


Title: Re: The Good Post Gallery
Post by: opebo on October 09, 2012, 08:42:54 am
OK, I'm obviously grading on a curve here, but Naso sometimes produces absolutely lucid, factually correct, and intelligent posts:

Yes, but my definition of 'Big Mo' is something that moves the polls by one point or more. Because our electorate just isn't very elastic anymore. Which means that 'Big Mo' is a necessary, not a sufficient condition for Romney victory.

A week ago this race was trouble for Romney. Now, we have a shot at winning Ohio, Virginia, North Carolina, Florida, Iowa and even Colorado with Pennsylvania and Michigan looking tough but much closer.

I'd venture a guess that if the election were held today, which I understand it's not but still, Romney could win the McCain states plus Indiana, North Carolina, Florida, Ohio and Virginia. That sits him at 266. One other state and he is elected President.

That's a fantastic position to be in less than a month away from the election, especially when you spent all of September looking like toast.



Title: Re: The Good Post Gallery
Post by: Saturday's Cab Ride Home on October 09, 2012, 09:53:06 am
Oh, I'm buying this game now. I disagree with many of his political/cultural/foreign policy views, but I've always found it ridiculous how much hate he got for essentially serving his country and its interests.

He was the point-man for an illegal executive branch plot which overstepped Congressional authority and grossly violated the separation of powers in our government. He managed the sale of a thousand anti-tank missile launchers to a hostile regime that sponsored (sponsors?) terrorism directed against the United States and its allies. He used the profits from this venture to fund rebel groups who sought to forcibly overthrow the (by that point) democratically elected Nicaraguan government; these groups notoriously killed tons of innocent Nicaraguan civilians (to the extent that the American-provided manuals even offered justifications for doing so). In addition, North used Panamanian dictator Noriega as a go-between when contacting the rebel groups; Noreiga was a brutal dictator in his own right and was also at the time was personally involved in smuggling mountains of cocaine illegally into the US.

To top it all off, he lied to Congress and the American public about all of the above, destroyed evidence that indicated otherwise, and only came clean when it was obvious the scale of his actions had been realized.

I really don't see how any of that can possibly be construed as "serving his country and its interests" in the slightest.


Title: Re: The Good Post Gallery
Post by: opebo on October 09, 2012, 01:53:37 pm
The largest air blitz in history against the strongest ground network in history. However, the underdog Democrats will hold against the Koch/Adelson juggernaut, just as little England weathered the Nazi storm.


Title: Re: The Good Post Gallery
Post by: sjoyce on October 11, 2012, 03:06:04 pm
Democracy empowers all people. Capitalism empowers the wealthy.

This, however, is not true.

Well, perhaps I oversimplified the concept, but capitalism certainly doesn't empower the less fortunate among us.

But it can. The premise of Capitalism is for all to work and succeed without the assistance of Government. Socialism inherently implies that one need not strive for success when Government can just hand them everything. Capitalism teaches a philosophy that humans should be responsible for their own economic success and should only rely on the Government when they cannot rely on themselves. In today's society, the welfare state has expanded so much that people can now receive welfare based on how many children they have, if they're married or not and plenty of other things that can just funnel more money into the pockets of people who do not seek work, at the expense of taxpayers. Why is it legal in some states for people to use food stamps to purchase cigarettes and alcohol? Why has the philosophy of 'people should not be required to look for work whilst receiving welfare' become a legitimate and basically widely accepted political position? Because humans have now come to the conclusion that working is too hard and American exceptionalism is too difficult to achieve, when it's really not. Sure, it requires a lot of hard work and blood and sweat and tears, but it does not mean that it is unreachable. Every multi-million dollar corporation started out as a small business at some point. The reason those small businesses where able to expand and become corporation was because there were always people looking for jobs, looking for money, looking for the pride that comes with having both of those things. There was no such thing as over-regulation and labour strikes where employees could halt two weeks' worth of product because they want more money. Are the leaders of most corporations greedy with their money to a certain extent? Absolutely. We'll disagree to what extent they're greedy, but that's not the point. The point is that nowadays, the lifestyle choice of some Americans has become either stay at home, don't work at all and expect the Government to pay for your house, your TV, your car and everything else you own or join a union and expect the leaders of said union to negotiate more money so you can buy your house that you can't afford, your TV that you can't afford and your car that you can't afford. It boggles my mind that someone making $50,000 a year would attempt to buy a $200,000 house and then be surprised when they're foreclosed, yet no one knows why the housing market crashed? It all comes back to the root of all evil (which I say that playfully): money. People will always want money so they can buy things. Socialism teaches that if someone else has too much money and I don't have enough money, I can just take their money so I have more money. So, in a nutshell, Socialism is a contradiction of itself in a way that it's supposed to be the least greedy of all economic philosophies, yet in practice it is the most greedy of all economic philosophies. The big point that I'm trying to make here is that Capitalism may not be perfect, but it offers everyone the opportunity to succeed and enjoy the benefits of success, whereas Socialism teaches laziness and bastardizes individual success and exceptionalism.


Title: Re: The Good Post Gallery
Post by: Marokai Backbeat on October 11, 2012, 03:08:02 pm
No post without proper paragraphing has ever been good.


Title: Re: The Good Post Gallery
Post by: Oakvale on October 11, 2012, 03:11:06 pm
Democracy empowers all people. Capitalism empowers the wealthy.

This, however, is not true.

Well, perhaps I oversimplified the concept, but capitalism certainly doesn't empower the less fortunate among us.

But it can. The premise of Capitalism is for all to work and succeed without the assistance of Government. Socialism inherently implies that one need not strive for success when Government can just hand them everything. Capitalism teaches a philosophy that humans should be responsible for their own economic success and should only rely on the Government when they cannot rely on themselves. In today's society, the welfare state has expanded so much that people can now receive welfare based on how many children they have, if they're married or not and plenty of other things that can just funnel more money into the pockets of people who do not seek work, at the expense of taxpayers. Why is it legal in some states for people to use food stamps to purchase cigarettes and alcohol? Why has the philosophy of 'people should not be required to look for work whilst receiving welfare' become a legitimate and basically widely accepted political position? Because humans have now come to the conclusion that working is too hard and American exceptionalism is too difficult to achieve, when it's really not. Sure, it requires a lot of hard work and blood and sweat and tears, but it does not mean that it is unreachable. Every multi-million dollar corporation started out as a small business at some point. The reason those small businesses where able to expand and become corporation was because there were always people looking for jobs, looking for money, looking for the pride that comes with having both of those things. There was no such thing as over-regulation and labour strikes where employees could halt two weeks' worth of product because they want more money. Are the leaders of most corporations greedy with their money to a certain extent? Absolutely. We'll disagree to what extent they're greedy, but that's not the point. The point is that nowadays, the lifestyle choice of some Americans has become either stay at home, don't work at all and expect the Government to pay for your house, your TV, your car and everything else you own or join a union and expect the leaders of said union to negotiate more money so you can buy your house that you can't afford, your TV that you can't afford and your car that you can't afford. It boggles my mind that someone making $50,000 a year would attempt to buy a $200,000 house and then be surprised when they're foreclosed, yet no one knows why the housing market crashed? It all comes back to the root of all evil (which I say that playfully): money. People will always want money so they can buy things. Socialism teaches that if someone else has too much money and I don't have enough money, I can just take their money so I have more money. So, in a nutshell, Socialism is a contradiction of itself in a way that it's supposed to be the least greedy of all economic philosophies, yet in practice it is the most greedy of all economic philosophies. The big point that I'm trying to make here is that Capitalism may not be perfect, but it offers everyone the opportunity to succeed and enjoy the benefits of success, whereas Socialism teaches laziness and bastardizes individual success and exceptionalism.

It's slightly tragic that you consider that amalgamation of right-wing platitudes and cheap politician's rhetoric masquerading as profundity  a "good post". :(

Also, paragraphs.


Title: Re: The Good Post Gallery
Post by: GM R2D2 on October 11, 2012, 03:12:44 pm
I basically just spilled everything that I was thinking out into that one post. Hence the lack of formatting.


Title: Re: The Good Post Gallery
Post by: Filuwaúrdjan on October 11, 2012, 03:57:25 pm
No post without proper paragraphing has ever been good.


Title: Re: The Good Post Gallery
Post by: Averroës on October 11, 2012, 05:43:34 pm
It's always strange when I'm tempted to post something in the deluge and it appears here.


Title: Re: The Good Post Gallery
Post by: 後援会 on October 11, 2012, 06:07:46 pm
I like how this thread is usually a left-wing circlejerk until someone else bursts onto the scene - at which point it turns into a debate thread.


Title: Re: The Good Post Gallery
Post by: Averroës on October 11, 2012, 06:15:23 pm
I like how this thread is usually a left-wing circlejerk until someone else bursts onto the scene - at which point it turns into a debate thread.

20RP12 posted a ponderous, incomprehensible rant. It's worse than most of his posts for reasons totally divorced from its content, and it's laughable that anyone would think that it deserves a place in something called the 'good post gallery.'


Title: Re: The Good Post Gallery
Post by: 後援会 on October 11, 2012, 06:24:21 pm
20RP12 posted a ponderous, incomprehensible rant.

That's my impression of most of the things posted in this thread. Carry on.


Title: Re: The Good Post Gallery
Post by: sjoyce on October 11, 2012, 06:36:23 pm
20RP12 posted a ponderous, incomprehensible rant. It's worse than most of his posts for reasons totally divorced from its content, and it's laughable that anyone would think that it deserves a place in something called the 'good post gallery.'

I liked it. Paragraphs would have been a nice touch, though.


Title: Re: The Good Post Gallery
Post by: GM R2D2 on October 11, 2012, 06:47:31 pm
I like how this thread is usually a left-wing circlejerk until someone else bursts onto the scene - at which point it turns into a debate thread.

20RP12 posted a ponderous, incomprehensible rant. It's worse than most of his posts for reasons totally divorced from its content, and it's laughable that anyone would think that it deserves a place in something called the 'good post gallery.'

I think the way I construed most of it was pretty poor, but my point is very clear. How one will interpret how agreeable it is will be left to the individual.


Title: Re: The Good Post Gallery
Post by: Bacon! 🔥 on October 12, 2012, 08:55:55 pm
I don't love Pinochet, but I'm fully willing to acknowledge him the least bad of several evils in the time period when he took power, ...

 Pinochet's coup had better outcomes than the alternatives,....

Also, this is probably the 8th time I've had to explained this stance.

1. This position is at variance with whatever is by now known about Chilean situation at the time. Chile was not, to the best available historical evidence, about to fall to the Soviets or whatever. Allende was not preparing a self-coup, he had just lost (and ackonowledged the loss) of a congressional election, was not allowed to run for re-election, and was not planning to change that prohibition. That there was all but no organized leftist resistance to the coup provides ample evidence that there was no leftist military organization outside the government either.  While one can plausibly argue that Pinochet and those around him were scared of things, all evidence we have at present shows that they were scared (if they were, indeed, scared) of figments of their own imagination.

2. It's not a matter of his personal failings, but of the absolute and unqualified evil and immorality of his actions as both the military commander and Head of State. He betrayed his military oath, betrayed his country, and murdered in cold blood a lot of people. While the first two could apply to Chavez's original coup (mind it: he did spend time in prison for that), the last is clearly unapplicable. From the standpoint of this particular Latin American rightist (which I am, without a doubt), there is no question that Chavez has been an infinitely less awful ruler than Pinochet. While I sharply diagree with Chavez's politics and do consider him a complete idiot, I don't doubt his good intentions. He is not a bad man - just a stupid one. Pinochet, though, was undoubtedly both stupid and evil.

3. The reason you have a hard time having your point of view accepted is not a misunderstanding (I understand it full well), but that it is a) ahistorical and b) immoral. You will not get any more understanding from me if you were to start defending Mussolini, Castro, Trujillo or any of the other tinpot dictators and "leaders" of the past century. No "ifs" or "buts" here. Any virtues of pension reforms or autobahns notwithstanding.


Title: Re: The Good Post Gallery
Post by: Trounce-'em Theresa on October 14, 2012, 02:17:24 am
SNL has waves of funny and not-funny. They'll have a great cast with great writers, but then after a few years everyone with talent uses the show as a springboard and moves on to bigger and better things, leaving only the mediocre behind. Then SNL stagnates for a while, until the next "generation" of actors/comedians/whatev finds their way to the show along with writers who can figure out how to write skits that work well for the new cast.

Anyways, anyone have a link to the skit?


Title: Re: The Good Post Gallery
Post by: Saturday's Cab Ride Home on October 15, 2012, 08:31:25 am
The fact that this whole "lol Obama's only up by 1 with a D+7 sample that's junk" thing is still going on is crazy, but I finally woke up and realized that the proof that it's horsesh**t was right in the crosstabs all along.  We all talk about how pollsters don't weigh yet that hasn't seemed to convinced the skew poll people so here's another angle to look at it that proves poll skewing to be non-existant.

First, let's go back to the 2004 and 2008 Exit Polls:

2004
Democratic 37%
Republican 37%
Independent 26%
D+0

2008
Democratic 39%
Republican 32%
Independent 29%
D+7

Now, simply by looking at that we can say, it was D+7 in a Democratic year but D+0 in a Republican year and this seems like a Republican year so it has to be close to D+0.  It sounds reasonable I suppose, but there's one big factor not being considered: why do people sign up for a political party? Their beliefs.  Personal beliefs are far stronger than affiliation.  If people feel their beliefs are not inline with a certain party, they will claim to leave it.  That's where the poll skewing shows itself to be non-existant, when we look at the exit polls on ideology:

2004
Liberal 21%
Moderate 45%
Conservative 34%
C+13

2008
Liberal 22%
Moderate 44%
Conservative 34%
C+12

Interestingly enough, the electorate's makeup by ideology didn't change much from 2004 to 2008.  What happened? McCain underperformed Bush in moderates by 6 percentage points.  Un-coincidentally, 5 points less  identified as Republican in 2008 compared to 2004; likely moderates who moved to Independent identification in 2008.

So, let's look at ideology identification in some 2012 national polls.  While nearly all polls ask this question, unfortunately, not all polls publish the makeup.  There also haven't been a lot of national polls done in recent weeks.  The most recent poll I can find which did publish the makeup was the NBC/WSJ poll (Obama 49-46) from 9/30.  Let's see what they found, first on Party ID:

NBC/WSJ
Democratic 32%
Republican 26%
Independent 40%
D+6

Now, at this glance, it looks like NBC/WSJ is aligned to show a Democratic bias by showing the turnout for Democrats to be the same as 2008.  However, when we look at the ideological identification...

NBC/WSJ on 9/30
Liberal 22%
Moderate 38%
Conservative 37%
C+15

And there we have it.  Pretty close to both 2004 and 2008 exit polls.  In fact, the NBC/WSJ poll, if anything, has sampled this election to have more conservatives in it than even the 2004 election.  "Unskew it" to 2004 levels and:

NBC/WSJ on 9/30 (My Numbers)
Obama 50.44%
Romney 42.53%

Of course, those aren't scientific.


Title: Re: The Good Post Gallery
Post by: oreomilkshake on October 15, 2012, 06:41:27 pm
Everyone on the internet has Asperger's. As does everyone even halfway interesting from the past. As everyone is on the internet now and as everyone from the past was at least halfway interesting, this must mean that everyone who has ever lived has had Asperger's.

Very true Al. Everyone semi-interesting from history is also gay and, bizarrely, left-handed.


Title: Re: The Good Post Gallery
Post by: Saturday's Cab Ride Home on October 17, 2012, 10:56:09 am
So in my case, if you're a member of a fraternity or sorority, chances are Romney is the "cool" option.

No offense, but isn't a fraternity the antithesis of 'cool'?  And a sorority is even worse.


Title: Re: The Good Post Gallery
Post by: oreomilkshake on October 18, 2012, 04:48:40 pm
good find zach. also kind of an obvious one:

Dane Cook is the Nickelback of comedy.


Title: Re: The Good Post Gallery
Post by: Saturday's Cab Ride Home on October 19, 2012, 09:50:29 pm
As always, J. J., you are almost totally wrong, but have found one thing that you will inevitably latch onto, to pretend you're actually competent in what you're discussing.  Let's begin!

No, but unless the guy was a letter carrier or a a public official, he had no obligation to deliver them.  Simply put, it is not legal to draft people into the US Postal Service.

Wrong in every state I know of, wrong in Virginia (http://leg1.state.va.us/cgi-bin/legp504.exe?000+cod+24.2-1002.01).  To wit: "If any person (i) agrees to mail or deliver a signed voter registration application to the voter registrar or other appropriate person authorized to receive the application and (ii) intentionally interferes with the applicant's effort to register either by destroying the application or by failing to mail or deliver the application in a timely manner, he shall be guilty of a Class 1 misdemeanor."  If I function as a voter registrar in a way that suggests to voters that I will turn in their application for them, and don't, I am guilty of a crime -- in Washington, in Virginia.  I have been doing voter reg for a while now, bro, and everyone knows this.

As to why, because they were duplicates, or at least he thought most of them were.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/worker-for-gop-hired-contractor-charged-with-dumping-va-voter-registration-forms/2012/10/19/86062d7a-19f1-11e2-ad4a-e5a958b60a1e_story.html

There is no indication there that Mr. Small thought they were duplicates -- just that they were.  That article doesn't even say Mr. Small was claiming that.  Also, read it more carefully.  Three of the eight voters were already registered.  One wasn't, but was a felon (did Mr. Small run felony background checks?)  Four were new voters and not duplicates.  Mr. Small is responsible for nearly disenfranchising four people, and there is no reason to assume he knew the other four applications were moot.

The line I assume you'll draw on to defend Mr. Small's applications is this: "If any person intentionally solicits multiple registrations from any one person or intentionally falsifies a registration application, he shall be guilty of a Class 5 felony."  That line does not prohibit submitting applications for those already registered.  It prohibits soliciting someone to register multiple times -- something that submitting a voter registration when you're already registered won't do.  People do that all the time.

Only if the person is a hired third party, which he was.  If someone hands you a voter registration form, and you are not an official (or a letter carrier), you have no obligation to do anything with it.

Demonstrably false.  I doubt that's even true in Pennsylvania.


Title: Re: The Good Post Gallery
Post by: opebo on October 20, 2012, 10:30:39 am
I've been hard on Tweed about this kind of thing - as hard as any of you, despite my fondness for the lad.  But this attempt I liked.  Perhaps its just that its dumbed down a bit (that's self deprecation, yes) from the usual arty stream-of-consciousness schtick.

Better off going to Thailand.

Eastern Europe, better -- the fantasy of taking the 16 year old peasant girl straight off the farm.

how do you get her to lose the restraint?  a frightening number of heterosexual relationships are not partnerships between equals, I learn this every day canvassing, and the nature of this particular fantasy would only serve to exacerbate the effect.

say everything works out: I get my $1m, hide it sufficently to keep it from governments and whoever else, and 'acquire' a reverse-mail-order bride, call her Alicja.  she's a virgin, of course, or at least that is what I am sold and I make no move to falsify it.  everything goes well, I'm in backwoods Poland, cheap vodka reigns, the world-weary bearded Tweed and Alicja, who went from 100-hour weeks of backbreaking labor to this strange life of leisure in no-time.

...I see her as timid, avoiding my glance, blushing furiously.  so anxiety-ridden she can't boil pasta correctly.  always willing to give in to my advances, but never daring to initiate any of her own... what I would do, for just that once!  for Alicia, to desire me, not to need me, but to desire me!  and to draw her ire in a matter!  when I cross her, for her to call me on it!  for her to be FURIOUS at me, the man who saved her from a life of anonymous ruin!  and then to cuddle with her after we've made-up, to see a tired, satisfied, knowing and calm gleam emanating from her eyes, knowing she has something on me, too...


Title: Re: The Good Post Gallery
Post by: memphis on October 23, 2012, 09:24:27 pm
The problem with America is most people are running on the tread mill and doing okay.  So they vote like they are doing okay.  Well when the lay off happens and you have a wife and kid that few hundred dollars a month you saved up goes bye bye real quick.

What happens if you get pulled over by the cops after having three beers at the bar on the way home for work.  Well you could be in financial hurt real quick.  What happens if an illegal alien with no insurance because you live in a Nazi state hits you?  Well your insurance will cover it but guess what?  Your insurance rates will go into the stratosphere.  If you have a a legal, medical, or career emergency you could be living in your parents basement or worse under a bridge real quick.  What keeps America going is the illusion of security.  The reality is most of us are dancing on the knife's edge and don't even realize it.


Title: Re: The Good Post Gallery
Post by: Trounce-'em Theresa on October 24, 2012, 05:28:20 pm
Okay, rant time (you've all been warned):

Seroiusly GOPher candidates, what in the blue hell is up with you guys lately?  I mean yeah I know, you got to play up the culture war bullshit for the proles and all but I mean really?  This?  Talking about women getting raped so lightheartedly and acting all natural about it?  I mean really?

Really?

I'm kind of wondering what is up with all these crazies lately, man.  I mean, I thought the Tea Party was about bringing sanity back to government and all, not bringing insanity UNTO government.  I mean, is there some really sick disturbing joke going on in the Grand Old Party that I'm not aware of?  Like this is some huge experiment being conducted by party heads to see how much insanity the base can handle?  Is this some disgusting display to show that by running candidates who say extremely stupid shit about women who get raped while supporting fiscal conservatism (very funny guys) how the fiscal cons will just keep swallowing the yucky shit these morons are shoveling down their throats?

I mean wow, I truly am entertained.  I must say that the performances pulled out by the dozens (just a guess here, I lost count after the second yahoo, whoever that was, said some stupid shit) of Republican lawmakers, or people who want to be lawmakers, this election cycle is truly Academy Award worthy.  No screw that, this is fucking Oscar bait baby!  And me, I'm just proud, so damn proud that we finally have politicians out there who so willingly give the American people the politics they deserve.  That is, of course, useless, idiotic, monotonous pure grade A fucking bullshit.

[/apple sauce for these freedom fighters, please]


Title: Re: The Good Post Gallery
Post by: shua on October 25, 2012, 03:30:42 pm
CountryRoads, the issue I think is that the "no abortion for rape" position is being defended horribly. If a politician says something like "it is still a human and has a right to life" it is much more tenable than when they try to hold to their position while dancing around it. It seems that is where Akinesque scenarios come about

     The issue is that there is this attitude in politics that your position does not have to be only tenable, but objectively and self-evidently correct in every possible sense. This leads to a lot of willful ignorance and a general unwillingness to have mature discussion of the issues. After all, admitting that the opposition might have a defensible point of view is just being a weak-kneed flip-flopper.


Title: Re: The Good Post Gallery
Post by: opebo on October 25, 2012, 04:54:41 pm
Looking at the polls from Ohio and Virginia the past couple days, I don't think anyone has to worry about what to do if Romney wins.


Title: Re: The Good Post Gallery
Post by: opebo on October 26, 2012, 12:17:45 pm
It's because Berkeley is corrupt and unlikable, which makes me like her more to be honest.

Women need to play by the same rules as men so it's just refreshing is all.


Title: Re: The Good Post Gallery
Post by: Lief 🐋 on October 26, 2012, 01:07:24 pm
Glad I'm not the only one that loves super corrupt and "unlikeable" Democrats. They're some of my favorite politicians!


Title: Re: The Good Post Gallery
Post by: opebo on October 26, 2012, 01:28:56 pm
Glad I'm not the only one that loves super corrupt and "unlikeable" Democrats. They're some of my favorite politicians!

I love them.  Though that wasn't the only reason that was a good post - to me it was the most muscular kind of feminism - when a woman can embrace being a powerful villain


Title: Re: The Good Post Gallery
Post by: © tweed on October 26, 2012, 01:30:47 pm
Glad I'm not the only one that loves super corrupt and "unlikeable" Democrats. They're some of my favorite politicians!

I love them.  Though that wasn't the only reason that was a good post - to me it was the most muscular kind of feminism - when a woman can embrace being a powerful villain

I just learned that my 'step-grandfather' was on trial for criminal conspiracy re: the Garment Workers union in the early 80s.


Title: Re: The Good Post Gallery
Post by: opebo on October 26, 2012, 01:34:47 pm
I love them.  Though that wasn't the only reason that was a good post - to me it was the most muscular kind of feminism - when a woman can embrace being a powerful villain

I just learned that my 'step-grandfather' was on trial for criminal conspiracy re: the Garment Workers union in the early 80s.

That's fantastic!  I have two close friends with familial connections to two different ancient but not entirely defunct mobs, and my own father was thought to be a designate of another (though he wasn't at all, just a man who knew and even met with their representatives, and the fact that they refrained from crushing him gave him cachet).


Title: Re: The Good Post Gallery
Post by: President Hillary Clinton on October 26, 2012, 04:55:43 pm
I definitely want a take no prisoners villainess in the Senate.


Title: Re: The Good Post Gallery
Post by: Platypus on October 27, 2012, 12:57:00 am
My great-(great?)-grandfather was a bookie, the mayor of Port Melbourne, and owned over a quarter of the pubs in the area.

All unrelated and entirely above-board, of course.


Title: Re: The Good Post Gallery
Post by: Smid on October 27, 2012, 01:21:27 am
My great-(great?)-grandfather was a bookie, the mayor of Port Melbourne, and owned over a quarter of the pubs in the area.

All unrelated and entirely above-board, of course.

And a good pub it is, too. We need to catch up soon. I have stuff on the weekend after next, but we need to have you over.


Title: Re: The Good Post Gallery
Post by: bore on October 27, 2012, 04:15:55 am
Speaking of villainy, my great great great granddad was a cattle thief in Ireland, who at one point decided to branch out into horses, so took them from the local British cavalry regiment. Predictably they came down on him like a ton of bricks, so he had to flee to the west of Scotland and change his name.


Title: Re: The Good Post Gallery
Post by: minionofmidas - supplemental forum account on October 27, 2012, 05:10:43 am
Speaking of villainy, my great great great granddad was a cattle thief in Ireland, who at one point decided to branch out into horses, so took them from the local British cavalry regiment. Predictably they came down on him like a ton of bricks, so he had to flee to the west of Scotland and change his name.
I fail to see any villainy. Unless you're referring to the availability of a "local" British cavalry regiment in Ireland.


Title: Re: The Good Post Gallery
Post by: Simfan34 on October 27, 2012, 07:41:57 am
Look, the ad is disgusting because of the way it objectifies women as innately sexual creatures.  For the "party of women", the party that supposedly sees women more than pump and dump, the ad shows how low democrats will go to get votes.  I can't imagine that any of the feminist pioneers are happy about any of this.
You really don't understand what feminism is do you? Its about empowerment. The whole part of you missing the joke aside, the idea that yes women would like to have sex and enjoy is a thing. People that support women's rights also support the rights of women to be ok with being sexual. Even in innuendos. If she was dancing around in a bikini, that would be objectification. This, is a woman being a woman. Deal with it and welcome to the 21st century.

Quote
For me though, it's unfortunately a reflection of our culture.  The vapidness, emptiness and narcissism of young adults.  They do live their lives in this manner: Nightlife and one night stands every weekend.  It's cool to sip on a nice cocktail or martini, where they discuss their phones, themselves and bring a gay friend (no offense by the way, it just is what it is) along so they can make fun of other people.  When they finish school, they demand to be serviced by government, over and over, and hopefully they will one day realize they were f...ed.
I don't think you know many young people. I've never run into a person between the ages of 18 and 30 (aka, those hipster kids these days) who demands to be serviced by the government. I've met some who are pissed that their degrees are worthless thanks to the economy tanking 4 years ago. I've met some who are pissed that they're being forced to play by a different set of rules than those who already made it. And I've met some who are happy to run off to wall street, to live in a bubble far from the difficult things in the world like working hard, where they get to drink those martinis, live a perpetual nightlife, and do all those horrible things that you seem to hate, all after declaring their unyielding fealty to the GOP.

Quote
I can't tell you how many times I've seen it.  You can see it in the morning, when you are driving through town and see one of the hipsters walking around.  The blank stare, the obsessive need to consider themselves at every moment...  For a bunch of democrats who complain about republicans being acolytes of Ayn Rand, I must say, they sure are self-absorbed.  You can also see how drained they are and the toll it takes to pretend you're better than everyone else each day. 
Ah, you confuse cultural trends to being in a ideological cult. In the 80s you'd of been complaining about those punks with their neon hair. In the 60s, those hippies and their bellbottoms. Maybe you just hate young people? (which is even funnier if you're younger than me) Did a wild pack of young people kill your entire family or something? Get a life and relax. People grow up and get off your lawn and get their own. And then new young folks show up with new trends that you hate. That's life.
Wrong - feminism in part sprang up because women were being objectified as sexual objects.  Up until the movement, it's been a common belief throughout most of history that women were cheaters and desperately wanted sex and that's why they needed to be controlled.  The moment they saw another man, they would throw themselves at them...etc.  Have you ever heard the phrase "She wanted it" in defense of a sexual harrassment claim.  The feminism movement was about breaking that stereotype by being successful, career driven, individuals who take strength in their innate abilities, not their gender role.  Lena Dunham is an idiot being an idiot, not a modern female pioneer of the 21st century.

Wrong again, I am 28 and actually I do know plenty of young people demanding to be serviced by the government, from healthcare to a living wage to everything in between.  One such example, a person on unemployment I knew said that he took two months off for himself while collecting because he deserved it.  Also, I would ask what those degrees are prior to making judments about their worth.  Not all degrees are created equally - Medieval Studies as opposed to an engineering degree.  Those individuals are not being forced to play by "a different set of rules" than those who made it.  They need to do their time and stop demanding instant gratification.  It didn't come that way for most wealthy people (other than the ones who have wealth by birth).  And about running off to Wall Street, you don't think that having that level of mastery of finance is hard work?  I don't understand it and I'm a pretty intelligent individual.  Most of those people start very low on the totem pole in that world, some never achieve anything through it and lots go belly up.  You seem to take the film version of Wall Street: Money Never Sleeps and all the TV shows to be truth about what it actually is.

I don't hate young people at all, but I dislike the decadence of this generation's youth.  80s youth culture doesn't bother me at all, especially the punk movement.  The punk movement was never about decadence and me, me, me all the time. 


Title: Re: The Good Post Gallery
Post by: Lief 🐋 on October 27, 2012, 10:57:26 am
I do not need to do this. I am voting for one of His followers and chosen representatives on Earth over the follower of a false prophet and false church and his atheist-worshipping running mate.


Title: Re: The Good Post Gallery
Post by: Torie on October 27, 2012, 11:00:13 am
I do not need to do this. I am voting for one of His followers and chosen representatives on Earth over the follower of a false prophet and false church and his atheist-worshipping running mate.

Hmm.  Are you becoming to BRTD what BRTD once was to opebo?


Title: Re: The Good Post Gallery
Post by: Lief 🐋 on October 27, 2012, 11:22:10 am
No, I only recognize good posts when I see them.


Title: Re: The Good Post Gallery
Post by: opebo on October 27, 2012, 06:25:14 pm
...what BRTD once was to opebo?

:'(


Title: Re: The Good Post Gallery
Post by: Torie on October 27, 2012, 06:26:35 pm
...what BRTD once was to opebo?

:'(

Now you are making me feel bad. I did not mean to hurt you that way kind sir. Sorry! We all need as much love as we can get. :(


Title: Re: The Good Post Gallery
Post by: Oakvale on October 27, 2012, 11:10:19 pm
Wrong - feminism in part sprang up because women were being objectified as sexual objects.  Up until the movement, it's been a common belief throughout most of history that women were cheaters and desperately wanted sex and that's why they needed to be controlled.  The moment they saw another man, they would throw themselves at them...etc.  Have you ever heard the phrase "She wanted it" in defense of a sexual harrassment claim.  The feminism movement was about breaking that stereotype by being successful, career driven, individuals who take strength in their innate abilities, not their gender role.  Lena Dunham is an idiot being an idiot, not a modern female pioneer of the 21st century.

The career driven aspects of feminism had nothing to do with sexuality.  You're basically just projecting your beliefs on sex onto feminism. 

The goal of feminism on sexuality is not and never has been to go from being repressed and controlled by men to being repressed and controlled by themselves.  That's a complete nonstarter.  It doesn't matter who is holding the whip if you're still being whipped.

Feminist attacks on porn have always been that the direction was catered to men.  That's what objectification is and that's what a lot of pornography is.  The woman has to be attractive and has to do a multitude of acts, while the man is some fat faceless schlub who gets to sit there and enjoy it.  When feminism went really hard against porn in the late 70s, it was also true that the men took most of the money from porn operations. 

Repressive anti-sexual virginity mongering towards women (and men) is another form of objectification, BTW.  The same kind of materialism that goes into this puritan parade can be seen (likely in the same people) who are unholy resistant to paying money for a recycled or used product and throw road rage fits if a shopping cart scratches the paint on their new car.


Title: Re: The Good Post Gallery
Post by: Clinton1996 on October 28, 2012, 10:22:04 pm
Of course libs are still blind to the face Barry Soetoro has been engaging in gutter politics and going negative on Romney for the past 2 months. Witness his petty, slimey performances in the past two debates. But Romney releases 1 ad to straighten the record and libs have a conniption

good luck turning out D+9...haha

My good friend i believe you have a case of B.D.S.


Barack Derangement Syndrome

You know Obamacare covers preexisting conditions,  you should get that examined.


Title: Re: The Good Post Gallery
Post by: opebo on October 29, 2012, 04:21:22 pm
My take:

1. It used to be understood that Latinos were far poorer than the US average. But there is now a large Latino middle class heavily urban and well-educated, effectively an intelligentsia. It remains able to connect with not-so-rich Latinos, much unlike middle-class white intelligentsia who can't relate effectively to poor whites. (Non-white and non-Christian intelligentsia also contrast in their political influence toward the poor of their own ethnicity and religion to white people). Such makes a huge difference in political realities between white Christians and about every other economic group in voting.

2. Latinos remain majority-Catholic. To be sure the Religious Right has made some headway into the Latino population, but not enough to break the Catholic culture. The Catholic Church is quite rational  -- much more than is so for Protestant Fundamentalists -- on science and history. Poor Catholic Latinos, unlike Protestant Fundamentalists of similar economic achievement, more respect formal education. The difference in valuation of education between Latinos and Anglo whites in the lower strata of economic achievement makes a huge difference in political attitudes. Latinos see formal education and the government necessary for it vital to their dreams; Anglo whites, to the extent that they are Protestant Fundamentalists, see formal education as a threat to their culture as well as part of the 'problem' of Big Government spending.

Poor white Protestant Fundamentalists, who at times have been exemplars of populist tendencies that go far to the Left, are now about as Right-leaning as the Master Class of tycoons, executives, and big landowners who can reach out to such people as they cannot reach out to the middle class.   

4. Although President Obama is clearly non-Hispanic, he is capable of playing to non-white, non-Christian, and non-Anglo populations very well. He has assimilated into the black middle class, but its values are close to those of the Latino middle class. Bingo!         


Title: Re: The Good Post Gallery
Post by: A Strange Reflection on October 31, 2012, 12:33:42 am
Nothing makes me prouder, this election cycle, than the fact that when it comes to making voting decisions a decent chunk of whites here in Ohio are thinking more about their class than their "culture" or race. If only that would happen more often. Thinking with their heads.


Title: Re: The Good Post Gallery
Post by: HagridOfTheDeep on October 31, 2012, 01:06:03 am
Nothing makes me prouder, this election cycle, than the fact that when it comes to making voting decisions a decent chunk of whites here in Ohio are thinking more about their class than their "culture" or race. If only that would happen more often. Thinking with their heads.

See, I think this is total junk. Why would we want people to vote based on "class" or "culture?" Wouldn't it be nice if people voted based on, you know, policies?


Title: Re: The Good Post Gallery
Post by: A Strange Reflection on October 31, 2012, 01:16:09 am
Nothing makes me prouder, this election cycle, than the fact that when it comes to making voting decisions a decent chunk of whites here in Ohio are thinking more about their class than their "culture" or race. If only that would happen more often. Thinking with their heads.

See, I think this is total junk. Why would we want people to vote based on "class" or "culture?" Wouldn't it be nice if people voted based on, you know, policies?

The main point is, I guess, that they stop voting for policies that completely screw them.


Title: Re: The Good Post Gallery
Post by: Trounce-'em Theresa on October 31, 2012, 09:16:55 am
Nothing makes me prouder, this election cycle, than the fact that when it comes to making voting decisions a decent chunk of whites here in Ohio are thinking more about their class than their "culture" or race. If only that would happen more often. Thinking with their heads.

See, I think this is total junk. Why would we want people to vote based on "class" or "culture?" Wouldn't it be nice if people voted based on, you know, policies?

What policies are in people's interest, or what policies they think are in their interest, are usually based on class, culture, or some combination thereof.


Title: Re: The Good Post Gallery
Post by: Saturday's Cab Ride Home on October 31, 2012, 10:12:40 am
I have noticed recently that many posters on the forum (and journalists too) appear to have a mistaken idea of what a "media market" is. In particular, many people appear to think that viewers typically don't see stations from outside their media market. This is incorrect.

What "media markets" actually are has to do with the FCC's "must carry" rules. Cable providers are legally required to carry local stations within a certain area - so, say, you can't offer a cable package in New York and omit a New York local affiliate from your basic cable package. (I'm not endorsing this one way or the other, but the thinking behind the rule is that since cable infrastructure uses public property, it's legitimate to prevent them by regulation from colluding with certain broadcasters to exclude other ones). So the country is divided into market areas within which local channels must be carried. Neilsen also uses these same areas for market research and ratings purposes. (The FCC uses the term "Television Market Area" and Neilsen uses the term "Designated Market Areas", and the informal term "media market" applies to both, but their boundaries are co-extensive so there's never a problematic ambiguity.)

But although providers must carry local channels within a media market, there's no prohibition at all on carrying channels outside the media market. In fact this is quite common. For example, when I lived in Mercer County NJ, my basic Comcast cable package included the main network affiliates for both New York and Philadelphia even though I was in the Philadelphia media market so offering the New York channels was a voluntary market decision. A more politically relevant example now: when I google "Toledo cable", the first result is a company called "Buckeye Cable", which seems to be the main provider in the area, and  their Toledo "standard service" (http://www.buckeyecablesystem.com/lineups/lineups/toledo-lineup.pdf) (pdf) includes not only the Toledo affiliates for all the national networks but also all the Detroit affiliates as well (plus even CBC Windsor). So actually all Detroit channels are widely seen in northwestern Ohio, even though this is a different "media market". And small markets don't necessarily have their own affiliates at all - Zanesville for example has a local PBS station and it gets its own media market so that Columbus cable companies aren't forced to show Zanesville PBS, but ABC and CBS don't have Zanesville channels so they just show Columbus affiliates there.

In addition to all this, if you have just an antenna, then what channels you get is just based on signal reception which obviously has nothing to do with county boundaries.

So, the lesson is, media markets are actually not that relevant at all to where ads are being seen and you have to look at the actual channel lineups offered by companies in the area, or distance from signal towers.


Title: Re: The Good Post Gallery
Post by: sjoyce on November 03, 2012, 06:53:51 am
Most "liberals" tend to be socialists who hate the rich man & want to spread the wealth & bring everyone under one large zionist jewish socialist government these are facts. the rich now a days are not southern true rich folk they are dirty jews who are using blacks and there servants to destroy the white race. & liberals are the devil.


Title: Re: The Good Post Gallery
Post by: Franzl on November 03, 2012, 07:22:20 am
Most "liberals" tend to be socialists who hate the rich man & want to spread the wealth & bring everyone under one large zionist jewish socialist government these are facts. the rich now a days are not southern true rich folk they are dirty jews who are using blacks and there servants to destroy the white race. & liberals are the devil.

You share that opinion?


Title: Re: The Good Post Gallery
Post by: sjoyce on November 03, 2012, 08:38:55 am
Most "liberals" tend to be socialists who hate the rich man & want to spread the wealth & bring everyone under one large zionist jewish socialist government these are facts. the rich now a days are not southern true rich folk they are dirty jews who are using blacks and there servants to destroy the white race. & liberals are the devil.

You share that opinion?

Of course I do.


Title: Re: The Good Post Gallery
Post by: oreomilkshake on November 04, 2012, 05:10:30 pm
One of the most ridiculous things I can think that has ever happened in this country is that the 2003 Bush tax cuts, which contained enormous tax cuts for the rich that didn't take affect for another several years were somehow an economic stimulus. The so called media of course went along with this nonsense, but just because no one called the Republicans on the insanity of that didn't mean that it wasn't totally absurd.


Title: Re: The Good Post Gallery
Post by: patrick1 on November 05, 2012, 12:44:06 am
Well who cares about rural white men anyway?

Obama and the Democrats owe them nothing. They've done nothing for this country but stoke race and class resentment at home and serve as cannon fodder for unnecessary wars abroad. They hate minorities, gays, pretty much anyone who isn't like them.

Romney and the Republicans don't owe them anything either. Guys like Romney would just as soon replace them with robots. Or if you can't get a robot, get some little Chinaman to do the same job for a tenth the cost. Cap their SSI benefits. Make it impossible for them to afford to retire and next to impossible for their kids to go to college. They'll still vote for the "working man's" party (even if most of them are laid off).

And they'll go on living in their alternate reality where they think the rest of us are mooching off them and that they're always being cheated and put upon. They always point their pitchforks at the wrong people. Schoolteachers. Black single moms. Do they really think they're to blame for the fact that a high school education doesn't get you into the middle class anymore? They ought to pick on somebody their own size for a change. Like their fellow white men - the ones who laid them off, for example.

^This post is the embodiment of out of touch, arrogant, smug dickishness. Attitudes like yours are the main reason why more and more working-class white people are voting Republican, or at least, not voting Democratic (often not even voting, period). How can you have a Party of the People when the party leaders and activists mock, sneer at, or worse, actively endorse policies that all working people suffer from?

Hate to break it to you, buddy, but the Democratic Party's emphasis on "Third Way" policies of vague "social progressivism", combined with accommodation and deference to the Reaganite program on the most foundational economic issues, insure that the vast majority of Americans of all colors, creeds, sexual orientation, genders, ethnicities, and ages will have their standard of living decline.

Yeah, social issues are important, but they must be tied to economics at their core-otherwise, you will have growing inequality, a country of haves and have nots. But hey, if one half-black man can become President, and if gays can marry in a few states, and if the Fortune 400 includes a few more highly educated white women, and if your party pays lip service to "social justice" in its rhetoric, while taking the positions of 90s Republicans in practice-the right-wing neo-liberal economic policies are worth that trade-off, eh?

The point is, a lot of poor and working-class white people feel forgotten by the Democratic Party, and rightly so. Yeah, there's racism and cultural ignorance among segments of the population there, but you can just as easily say that for "educated"  middle and upper class white counterparts (who, I'd argue, are better at hidingt heir racism, not that they have less of it). 

So why pick on poor whites-in particular, poor rural whites? Because they vote Republican? Or maybe it's something else entirely; maybe their voting Republican is an indicator of the Democratic Party's abandonment of economic, bread-and-butter issues, in favor of a harsh "meritocracy" that a token number of non-whites would participate in, but would not fundamentally alter power relations.




Title: Re: The Good Post Gallery
Post by: Snowstalker's Last Stand on November 05, 2012, 07:38:04 am
Came to post that, patrick.


Title: Re: The Good Post Gallery
Post by: Averroës on November 05, 2012, 08:56:49 am
Al's characteristically acerbic (but uncharacteristically lengthy) response from the same thread also belongs here, particularly the last paragraph.

Betrayed about what? Please explain to me how these people have been betrayed (and by whom).

The economic and social policies of Democratic Party after the election of Bill Clinton, supposedly one of them. The language of betrayal generally isn't helpful for anything other than starting a metaphorical (or actual) fight, but it does have a certain truth to it in this case.

Quote
I guess what boggles my mind, living in and having grown up in a large, multicultural, polyglot city,

Which I suppose immediately demonstrates your moral superiority.

Quote
Yes, income inequality has widened over the past thirty years. Yes, wages for unskilled jobs have been depressed. But part of the reason the archetypal good ole boy could go from high school to the factory floor and support a stay-at-home wife and three kids on his salary is because the prevailing system denied blacks and immigrants and women the opportunities for those jobs. It's kind of hard to deny that the relative prosperity that working-class whites enjoyed in the mid-20th century was had at the expense of a minority underclass. In that sense, it was arguably "undeserved."

Actually the main reason for the decline in working class living standards is the same in the U.S as in most other Western countries: namely deindustrialisation and neoliberal economic dogma. If you can't see this, then you aren't worth talking to.

It's interesting, however, that the word 'undeserved' comes up here. Most posters here are spoilt brats from bourgeois backgrounds who have lived charmed lives and don't even realise that this is so. They will progress from their comfortable suburban backgrounds to university and then to generally well-paid careers. Surely all of this, given the social structure of the United States, is quite 'undeserved' as well? Because it surely must come at the 'expense' of someone else...



Title: Re: The Good Post Gallery
Post by: Snowstalker's Last Stand on November 07, 2012, 05:51:45 pm
Al delivers as usual with the traditional post about coal country:

Unfortunate, but not entirely surprising; plenty of reasons to vote against Obama (of course not all of these are what we might think of as entirely legit, but then electoral analysis should shy away from passing moral judgment), and essentially none to vote for him - other than the 'D' next to his name. And it's clear that that doesn't really matter that much these days, which is quite a remarkable cultural shift and worthy of comment in itself.

Also, when voters think a party or a candidate is hostile to them, they tend to be hostile to said party and/or candidate. I think the intensity of that in this case is quite clear. The question is whether this is just a reaction to Obama's obvious indifference combined with his obvious Otherness (which produces an image of hostility) or whether it's something that will now be held against the entire national Democratic party; Manchin, Tomblin and Rahall were all re-elected, so the state Dem brand has some life in it for now.


Title: Re: The Good Post Gallery
Post by: Saturday's Cab Ride Home on November 08, 2012, 12:17:43 pm
I had good insurance with my job before obama came into office.

It isn't really possible for 'private' insurance to be good, I'm afraid.  Insurance companies don't want to pay you if they can avoid it, you see.


Title: Re: The Good Post Gallery
Post by: Trounce-'em Theresa on November 09, 2012, 01:29:29 am
Just going by personal anecdote.. I've always felt the more liberal parts of Iowa were similar to the adjacent areas of SW WI and SE MN (as well as the MN River Valley)... they have a distinctly upper-midwestern culture dominated by northern German and Scandinavian heritage that brought with them very moralistic politics, as Angus pointed out above.

Things like good public schools, healthcare, and welfare aren't done because it is practical or serves some purpose to keep the masses sated while a small minority run everything... but because it's the 'right thing to do'.

An uncanny sense of shared culture coupled with a complete lack of cultural awareness (trust me, it's possible) means that "the right thing to do" governs political leanings rather than tradition or pragmatism.  It's why Minnesota has put forth politicians like Paul Wellstone or the Happy Warrior that championed civil rights for blacks as part of the Democratic Party platform (and began the long, bloody slide of the south over to their mortal enemy party, the GOP).

Ask an Iowan or Minnesotan to define their culture... and they'll shrug their shoulders and say "I dunno... ask the next guy"... because he will have no idea what his culture actually is.. but he knows the next guy is part of that same, undefined culture.  That or they'll start on a rant of self-deprecating anecdotes involving a guy named Ole, his friend Sven, and a boat load of hotdish.

At the same time, when I've been to Nebraska.. I get a much more "individualistic"/western feel.  The big businesses in Omaha were meat packing from cattle that came in from ranches in the western part of the state.  And oddly, an influx of Italians there means you often get a side of spaghetti with your steak at the steakhouse.  Nebraska seems to have a competent state government and excellent schools... and I can never get over how good their freeways are in Omaha compared to the Twin Cities (which are all functionally obsolete, narrow, grid-locked, and riddled with old fashioned clover leafs that require heroic acts of weaving through speeding traffic just to change freeways)... but yeah... Iowa seems to be more the land of family farms where they're likely to have fields of corn and soybeans and a barn full of pigs.. where individualism and self sufficiency is encouraged... but accepting aid from a neighbor, or more importantly, offering aid to a neighbor in need, is most important.  Meanwhile Nebraska has more of the cattle ranchers that rely on themselves or their immediate family. 

Chucking it all off onto farm subsidies and unionization is over simplifying it and completely ignoring the cultural fabric of the state.  Like Angus said above, and if I might take it a step further... those things are effects... not causes... of their political culture.

I'm really glad Snowguy is back.


Title: Re: The Good Post Gallery
Post by: Averroës on November 09, 2012, 11:37:54 am
A couple of unrelated submissions:

We can't really know what this race meant to him, but it's clear that there was an exuberant confidence about him and his team going into election night that was utterly shattered. What happens to you when you're about to reach the apotheosis of your life and your work, and you know that you have seized the day, but suddenly you realize that it's all been an illusion, and that you've failed on the biggest possible stage? Imagine how he must blame himself. Imagine looking into the faces of the crowd in Boston that was expecting to celebrate, saying anything to raise them out of defeat and despair. Imagine the apologies he must feel he has to make now to everyone who loves him.

The fact is that Mitt Romney will be remembered in history as a failure. Business, Olympics, government, it's all forgotten now. I don't care how many cars or houses he has, for he has enough to live out a comfortable and fulfilling life - but Election Night was surely the culmination an almost surreal human tragedy for him. I deeply sympathize with him. To wish this fate upon one's fellow man is truly criminal.

When a potential employer is calling your references, they always ask "Would you hire this person again?"

Democrats reaching for running-the-business rhetoric: this will be your downfall, if you do not want it to be.


Title: Re: The Good Post Gallery
Post by: Landslide Lyndon on November 09, 2012, 05:24:53 pm
Alright is it time to call BS on all the pundits?  All we heard for YEARS is "Bush's brain."  All Rove was was lucky.  Had Bill Clinton smoked his cigar instead of doing weird sh-t with it Bush would never have been elected.  We kept hearing what a genius Rove is.  Turns out he was in the right place at the right time and just didn't F'up too bad.  Now this go around while Obama was putting together the craziest ground game this country has ever seen Rove's strategy was to buy half a billion dollars worth of TV ads.  Unbelievable.  I could have done that.

What pisses me off about this is Karl Rove walks away with literally MILLIONS for doing nothing.  Actually he didn't do nothing he actually burned money that could have been used for something useful.  But yet somehow Karl Rove is better than a single mother living on welfare.  How does that make any sense?  50 single mothers on welfare wouldn't waste as much money as Karl Rove but he is a glorious small business owner and a single mother is scum of the earth.  How does that make any sense?

And it's not just Karl.  What about all the TV pundits on the left and the right?  They get paid six figures to tell us how amazing Rove is for years.  They were 100% wrong.  We would have done better without them.  So are they better than single mothers living on welfare?  When are we going to wake up and realize a swindled six or seven figure paycheck does not make you a glorious "small business" owner that we should worship!

The fact of the matter is our society is full of self important leeches who tell us how critical their work is for our society while they talk about all the single mother's getting welfare checks.  It makes me sick.


Title: Re: The Good Post Gallery
Post by: HokeyDood on November 11, 2012, 01:16:20 pm
I'm a Christian, not an atheist, but I'd like to butt in on defense of atheists and atheism here.  Stalin doesn't give his belief system a bad name, because unlike the other options, his actions are not the result of atheism - there is no atheist doctrine, commandments, or anything.  Just like golfers follow the rules of golf, an a-sportsperson (an analogous made up term for someone who doesn't play sports) has no actions that are reflected by the concept of the rules of sports.

What he did was in spite of atheism - it wasn't his atheism that had any effect on his actions (this is functionally impossible, seeing as atheism isn't a spiritual belief system as much as just a term for having a lack of one).  His "belief system" that influenced his actions was the Leninist bolshevik interpretation of Marx and Engel's writings on economics and the organization of the working class (or, in my opinion, organization of the bureaucratic class).

So to put Stalin on here without clarifying it's Leninism that is his belief system of contribution, and not atheism (which is not a belief system)  - is, in my opinion, misleading and not representative of the reality of it.  And I only infer this poll as referring to his atheism because numerous times in the media I've seen Stalin as a critique back at atheists (which is intellectually dishonest) when they bring up religious extremists.  But certainly correct me if I misinterpreted the poll.


Title: Re: The Good Post Gallery
Post by: opebo on November 11, 2012, 04:59:53 pm
Yeah, but the real question for 2016 is whether Obama's coalition turns out for all future democratic candidates or whether his coalition recedes back into the shadows with a Biden or Clinton candidacy.  I also wonder if the black vote holds up for say the fake Obama down in Texas, Julian Castro.  By the way, are there any VP's who have lost their party's nomination once they chose to run?

My hunch is that Obama built a coalition for himself and that it won't be nearly as strong in the next election, especially when faced with a Rubio/Martinez (or vice versa).

I agree. I think the coalition is Obama's coalition, not the Democrat's.

Somebody owes me $10, the "those people will never turn up in 2016" argument from the GOP is what I was expecting to emerge in late 2015... so congrats on being early.


Title: Re: The Good Post Gallery
Post by: Filuwaúrdjan on November 11, 2012, 05:58:22 pm
Arguing that Communist repression of religious practice and organisation had nothing to do with the personal atheism of Communist leaders is actively and openly absurd.


Title: Re: The Good Post Gallery
Post by: HokeyDood on November 11, 2012, 07:04:11 pm
Arguing that Communist repression of religious practice and organisation had nothing to do with the personal atheism of Communist leaders is actively and openly absurd.

I would argue they would have repressed religion regardless.  It was incompatible with the "ideal" they were striving for.  The atheism was not to blame, the Marxism/Leninism was.  Plus, is it's hard to argue that that the Communist leadership was ALL atheist.  

I think the main thing I liked about that post was that he was trying to point out that communism is not the idealistic implementation of atheist thought.  I'm an atheist, yet surely what you would call a capitalist when you really get to the core of my views.  Often times, this view is not shared by many Americans who worship money, and you can see how they wind up getting to this conclusion. 


Title: Re: The Good Post Gallery
Post by: Yelnoc on November 13, 2012, 05:09:41 pm
Republicans are all too quick to think in terms of skin color. That's why - right off the bat - they begin hitting around the idea of putting a brownface on the ticket. "That'll solve everything", they seem to think. When it comes to policy, they go for the most expedient solution instantly. "Let's solve the immigration problem after we had our asses handed to us and then they'll like us", they say.

It's much deeper than that and it is something that must be corrected through substantiated policy shifts, tones and attitudes. Latinos by and large do not agree with Republican governance because the economic policies go against their values systems. Sure, you can argue that social conservatism is heavily ingrained in Latino culture, but Latinos do not vote on social issues. Those are first-world problems and until the entire Latino community is integrated fully within American society, they will not be voting as a bloc on issues like gay marriage and abortion. Even better, by the time they do, they will be Americanized enough to not fall victim to right-wing social pandering.

The other big problem is how Republicans discuss matters of race and those from other races. At the micro level, I cringe every time I hear a local conservative begin to discuss race - or even simply an event pertaining to a person of a different race. They don't even know how offensive they are being when they associate concepts such as laziness, criminality and difference with people from other races. If a born and bred whitey can identify these racist statements and be offended by them, then someone to whom it (supposedly) pertains will certainly be able to identify it even easier. Unfortunately, the trend at the upper echelons of the Republican Party hasn't been much better.

It's hard to tell an entire party and many of its supporters to simply stop being racist, but that's the issue at hand here. It may not be overt racism in all cases, but the smell of it is still strong and it's what is sending people of color fleeing in droves from the Republican Party. Fortunately for Democrats, those mouth-breeders who are the local "emissaries" for the Republican Party will continue to scare off the future demography of the United States for many years to come.


Title: Re: The Good Post Gallery
Post by: opebo on November 14, 2012, 06:07:27 am
That sounds like a slight variation on the "Real America" of Sarah Palin. Republicans make a huge mistake by demonizing urban America -- which now increasingly includes Suburbia as it takes on urban characteristics. The great urban areas have the high-cost infrastructure and high-cost public services. A four-lane freeway that exists in rural areas so that it can connect Louisville and Cleveland is superfluous for local needs... but it is wholly inadequate in Louisville, Cincinnati, Columbus, or Cleveland. Small towns can pay teachers and cops badly by big-city standards because of a lack of alternatives... but in a great city teachers have the ideal skill set for selling big-ticket objects and cops have to be paid well enough so that they don't become de facto parts of the payroll of criminal gangs. Want good roads, good teachers, and honest cops? You have to pay for those if you live in a city.

Such is one of the divides between rural and urban America. A century-old house in a small town might be one of the finest buildings in town and well taken care of. In a giant city it is probably a slum subdivided into apartments similar in size to prison cells.  In a city one needs to take a pooper-scooper along if one walks the dog. Deep in farm country? Nobody will ever know where your dog defecates.

The Republicans miss something that Barack Obama has caught onto: that Suburbia is becoming legitimately urban in its problems, including decaying infrastructure. Note well that the post-WWII suburban sprawl is approaching 70. Think of what is happening to all those once-new sewers and streets built to last a lifetime. The lifetimes of the people who first bought into that suburban sprawl are mostly no longer living. 


Title: Re: The Good Post Gallery
Post by: Lief 🐋 on November 15, 2012, 03:11:05 am
Bravo BRTD! The last two lines especially.

And for the record, McCain has really done nothing in service to the US. He fought to defend a fascist regime that in no way benefited US interests and simply bloated and benefited the military-industrial complex, was imprisoned by an enemy of that regime for several years, and then used a political career rife with corruption to benefit individuals like Charles Keating, attention whored the hell out of his limelight for a couple years just because he managed to lose to an even worse human being in the GOP primary, in his own campaign picked someone as his running mate that basically forever destroys his credibility on stating if someone is qualified for ANYTHING, lost, and then pandered to the far right to survive a primary challenge only to end up a standard backbencher tool of the GOP leadership. He is nothing more than a bitter washed up old man. Obama appointing Rice and getting her through would be another fantastic showing of his superiority over McCain and how McCain can't ever beat him. Obama beat him in 2008 and should use every opportunity to beat him as much as possible from here on.


Title: Re: The Good Post Gallery
Post by: Northam for Governor '17 on November 15, 2012, 11:33:45 pm
Reading Naso's worshipful idealization of a decade he was about 15 years too young to experience never fails to amuse.

His knowledge of the 80's based on sitcoms is like basing one's knowledge of medieval history on a Rennaissance Faire.


Title: Re: The Good Post Gallery
Post by: sjoyce on November 17, 2012, 01:24:05 pm
SJoycle- you're forgetting the rule of the board... any one who makes comments supporting the Democratic Party gets a standing ovation from the members in front of their computer monitor...any other comment gets that person attacked as stupid, irrelevant, evil- you name it!


Title: Re: The Good Post Gallery
Post by: Trounce-'em Theresa on November 19, 2012, 05:27:03 am
Wait, you went to the same high school as your mother? That seems awfully... provincial. Unless you both went to the same private school or something. But I suppose you're old enough that if your mother had gone to a private school, it would have been an all girls school.

But that's not it, right? You've stayed in the same place for decades. That's actually kind of depressing. Perhaps I shouldn't be so critical of "cosmopolitanism"...

Dude, what would it matter if he did. It seems just an rather obnoxious point of pretense.  How many generations were your ancestors/relatives in Ethiopia for?  Sometimes people like where they grew up, consider it their home and are not keen to social climb to supposedly greener pastures.


Title: Re: The Good Post Gallery
Post by: opebo on November 21, 2012, 12:19:47 pm
The judge should turn over the factories to the worker.


Title: Re: The Good Post Gallery
Post by: Mechaman on November 21, 2012, 05:34:11 pm
No, the two big parties are plenty horrible enough now for me not to vote for them, I don't need to go fishing for reasons from 50 (or even 5) years ago.


Title: Re: The Good Post Gallery
Post by: Badger on November 22, 2012, 03:40:33 pm
Bravo BRTD! The last two lines especially.

And for the record, McCain has really done nothing in service to the US. He fought to defend a fascist regime that in no way benefited US interests and simply bloated and benefited the military-industrial complex, was imprisoned by an enemy of that regime for several years, and then used a political career rife with corruption to benefit individuals like Charles Keating, attention whored the hell out of his limelight for a couple years just because he managed to lose to an even worse human being in the GOP primary, in his own campaign picked someone as his running mate that basically forever destroys his credibility on stating if someone is qualified for ANYTHING, lost, and then pandered to the far right to survive a primary challenge only to end up a standard backbencher tool of the GOP leadership. He is nothing more than a bitter washed up old man. Obama appointing Rice and getting her through would be another fantastic showing of his superiority over McCain and how McCain can't ever beat him. Obama beat him in 2008 and should use every opportunity to beat him as much as possible from here on.

There's little to nothing good about this post, particularly regarding McCain's military service. The deep faults of US Vietnam policy can't and shouldn't be placed on the shoulders of any serviceman, including McCain.

If liberals are going to truly ascribe to 'Supporting our troops' while opposing the wars they fight, then that has to apply as equally to the John McCain's and Josh Mandels as to the Max Clellands and Patrick Murpheys.


Title: Re: The Good Post Gallery
Post by: Franzl on November 22, 2012, 03:45:12 pm
Badger, I don't personally think joining the military and fighting is, in itself, something that should be commended. Particularly in times of general peace. A different argument can be made for strong, morally indisputable missions like defeating fascism  in WW2.

But otherwise , I view veterans no differently than any other fellow citizens and human beings.


Title: Re: The Good Post Gallery
Post by: Marokai Backbeat on November 22, 2012, 05:58:05 pm
I don't normally respond to Krazen's baiting, but I actually do find this to be a very interesting and important topic. And it reminds me how much the "copyright rule" we have on this forum can be twisted and used as a convenient excuse to only post portions of an article you like, and ignore those that do not fit into your narrative.

Here are some more quotes from the article that Krazen found it convenient to omit:

Quote
A huge part of the problem is that agencies can’t keep their private contractors in check. Starved of funds and expertise for in-house planning, officials contract out the project management and early design concepts to private companies that have little incentive to keep costs down and quality up.

Quote
Melis also warned against “consultants who consultant with consultants and advisers who advise advisers,” something American planners would do well to learn... Not so in the U.S. Parsons Brinckerhoff, perhaps the biggest name in the nation’s transit construction industry, is both the lead-design contractor and project manager for California’s planned high-speed rail line, and the company stands a good chance of winning construction contracts for its own designs.
As if that conflict of interest wasn’t bad enough, the California High-Speed Rail Authority’s new CEO, Jeff Morales, arrived at the agency after a stint as senior vice present at Parsons Brinckerhoff, where he worked on the authority’s business plan.

Quote
Larry Littlefield, who has worked in logistics and as a budget analyst at New York City Transit, also suggests the U.S. legal system is an obstacle to designing and building affordable infrastructure. (The U.K. and India share a common-law legal heritage with the U.S. that is heavy on judicial review, and they also have trouble controlling costs.)

Quote
Reformers demanded objective and easily policeable standards, which often meant lowest-price bidding rules. Bidders compete mostly on price, not quality.

In Madrid, on the other hand, cost was given only a 30 percent weight when picking designers and builders, according to Melis. Speed was weighted at 20 percent. Melis praised quick execution as necessary for an efficient, affordable project. (Compare this with multigenerational projects, such as California’s high-speed rail and New York’s Second Avenue subway.) The remaining 50 percent was determined by the technical merits of proposals and the staff’s subjective considerations.

Quote
Littlefield also argues that judges in New York routinely side with contractors in disputes with the Metropolitan Transportation Authority. “In the private sector, if you rob your customer, you will suffer a hit to your reputation and possible losses in the courts,” he said in an interview. “Not so if you rob an agency like the MTA. Then it’s all rights and no responsibilities.”

The MTA must continue to award contracts to the lowest- price bidder, and without the ability to hold bad contractors accountable, Littlefield said, the agency turns to “writing longer and longer and longer contracts, expressly prohibiting every way it has been ripped off in the past.” The byzantine contracts that come out of this process drive entrants away, limiting competition and pushing up costs.

Unions aren't mentioned in the article. Not even once. However, there are multiple references to private companies and contractors and their rampant corruption. And really, I'm not naive to believe unions don't play a role in this. They likely do. But if so they would be one of many factors. And isn't it interesting that the very article Krazen decides to use as evidence doesn't even mention them? Perhaps he's just hoping most won't actually read the article --- which I suppose is likely... Also funny that a lot of these countries doing it better than us are run by Socialist and Communist governments. What kind of message is Krazen trying to send?

But as someone who would like our country to invest in better mass transit, I did read the article, and it certainly doesn't lead one to the same conclusions as Krazen. In fact, what I see is the opposite. I see more and more private sector influence in government. Whoever donates the most money to political campaigns and lobbying gets their way. Yet Republicans seem to think Citizens United was a good ruling. I suspect it will just lead to more and more of this.

There are very specific problems we run into with infrastructure projects, many of which are mentioned in the article. These are problems that can and should be fixed. Quitting and letting our infrastructure crumble as some Republicans would prefer is just lazy and dishonest.


Title: Re: The Good Post Gallery
Post by: Saturday's Cab Ride Home on November 24, 2012, 11:49:21 am
Badger, I don't personally think joining the military and fighting is, in itself, something that should be commended. Particularly in times of general peace. A different argument can be made for strong, morally indisputable missions like defeating fascism  in WW2.

But otherwise , I view veterans no differently than any other fellow citizens and human beings.

This. Would you hold any higher respect for someone for being a veteran of the Soviet campaign in Afghanistan? How about a veteran of the Serb or Croat armies in the early 90s?

It's not surprising someone living in Germany thinks this way, I've noticed that Germans far more than most nationalities tend to lack holding someone in higher regard because of military service. There's a reason for that...


Title: Re: The Good Post Gallery
Post by: Mechaman on November 25, 2012, 08:17:08 am
Badger, I don't personally think joining the military and fighting is, in itself, something that should be commended. Particularly in times of general peace. A different argument can be made for strong, morally indisputable missions like defeating fascism  in WW2.

But otherwise , I view veterans no differently than any other fellow citizens and human beings.

This. Would you hold any higher respect for someone for being a veteran of the Soviet campaign in Afghanistan? How about a veteran of the Serb or Croat armies in the early 90s?

It's not surprising someone living in Germany thinks this way, I've noticed that Germans far more than most nationalities tend to lack holding someone in higher regard because of military service. There's a reason for that...

It's quite fitting that you two have made these observations in "The Good Post Gallery".


Title: Re: The Good Post Gallery
Post by: Watermelon sin Jamón on November 26, 2012, 08:55:23 am
In many ways the Social Democratic model is up against the wall. You cant keep up high taxes combined with capitalist ownership because capital just moves away. So either you turn left and introduce some kind of economic democracy, where workers/cooperatives/unions etc. control production or go right and become softcore liberals. Since the 70s/early 80s no-one has no-one has dared turning left and therefore SocDems are in a perpetual defensive position.
Social democracy in the old sense with big welfare states financed by milking the capitalist economy will never really return as a viable option. But the movement keeps pretending that it can and keeps moving to the right ceding more and more territory to the neo-liberals. So basically they have to either accept the fact that they are social liberals or come up with an idea on how to make a market based socialism work in the real world and on a national/continental level and no-one has really been able to do that. So yeah, I don't see them pulling trough. 


Title: Re: The Good Post Gallery
Post by: A Strange Reflection on November 29, 2012, 05:43:49 pm
The Republican Party in its current form should really be a far-right fringe party that gets single digit percentages.


Title: Re: The Good Post Gallery
Post by: opebo on November 30, 2012, 06:51:25 am
Seatown is great:

"Humiliation of the working class hits a new level" - should be the title.

The sore loser is the guy who got the tattoo on his face.
I believe Romney is the sore loser, this guy is just a loser.


Title: Re: The Good Post Gallery
Post by: opebo on December 01, 2012, 04:09:47 pm
Of course. America is a very simple beast that will readily and enthusiastically allow its handlers to return to the same poisonous trough time and again. Our collective economic thinking has been so restricted to think that what happens in our economy is natural and capitalism at its best. Booms and busts are created and we keep feeding into them without questioning them. And as long as people are led to believe that they are also benefiting and that the boom will never end, they'll keep jumping for joy every time they make a little imaginary money. Meanwhile the people fueling this make billions and continue to hoard it while demonizing those who want a healthy economy as anti-job commies. But we never learn...


Title: Re: The Good Post Gallery
Post by: memphis on December 04, 2012, 06:25:24 pm
Inks, I know you have good intentions here, but if you really want a Republican Party you can be proud of, you need to stop defending them for awhile.  There was a time when calling either party reprehensible was pure hackery, but that time is not now.  The Democratic Party, whether you agree in it's ideological conclusions or not, is morally superior to the Republican Party in 2012.  You of all people should know, your state GOP nominated Pete Hoekstra.

Over the past ten years, groups like Club for Growth have made sure any noble man better not seek election under the R brand.  Only those interested in making $$$ need apply, even if you're uneducated and have no idea how to run a national government.  That's not a hack opinion.  That's a description of most of the candidates we've seen run as Republicans in the past four years.

Yes, the Republican leadership is obstructionist and the Republican caucus is mostly full of know-nothings.  We don't have the Watergate tapes to prove it, but it's pretty obvious. 

It was certainly obvious with Romney long before "47%" and "gifts."  Yet Republicans spent a whole year trying to tell me what was obvious with my own eyes and ears wasn't true.  That Romney was some sort of noble person and it was the liberal media or hackery warping my perception.  No dice.  I would like to hold an objective position that Romney and Obama, or current Republicans and Democrats,  are the same in how much they care about people, how personally greedy they are, how much they listen to their big donors over the common folk, etc., etc. but that wouldn't be an objective position.  Barack Obama is a much better person than Mitt Romney is.   The Democratic Party of 2012 is much a better party than the Republican Party of 2012 is.  1990 GOP vs. 1990 Democrats? Probably equal.  The Bushes and Clintons? Probably equal.  Republicans today? No way.

Defending the GOP right now is the equivalent of going to a dinner party, being served a platter of feces, and eating it because the host has served real meals to you in the past.  We need to accept that the Republican Party has being sh**tting on plates for the past few years and demand better food.


Title: Re: The Good Post Gallery
Post by: Simfan34 on December 05, 2012, 06:00:20 pm
Instead of one minute silence, we should all Take Five. (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=faJE92phKzI)

Link mine.


Title: Re: The Good Post Gallery
Post by: bgwah on December 05, 2012, 06:09:43 pm
Of course. America is a very simple beast that will readily and enthusiastically allow its handlers to return to the same poisonous trough time and again. Our collective economic thinking has been so restricted to think that what happens in our economy is natural and capitalism at its best. Booms and busts are created and we keep feeding into them without questioning them. And as long as people are led to believe that they are also benefiting and that the boom will never end, they'll keep jumping for joy every time they make a little imaginary money. Meanwhile the people fueling this make billions and continue to hoard it while demonizing those who want a healthy economy as anti-job commies. But we never learn...

Please don't ever put a Fezzy post in here again. Thanks.


Title: Re: The Good Post Gallery
Post by: We Have A Pope on December 05, 2012, 07:41:39 pm

Maher seems to like him, so he can't be that bad.

Bill Maher liking somebody is a liability, not an asset.


Title: Re: The Good Post Gallery
Post by: HokeyDood on December 05, 2012, 09:02:13 pm

Maher seems to like him, so he can't be that bad.

Bill Maher liking somebody is a liability, not an asset.

If someone can provide me with a reason not to like Bill Maher other than "he's an a-hole", I'd love to here it.  He's insanely rational and logical and tends to come out on the right side of every issue. 


Title: Re: The Good Post Gallery
Post by: A Strange Reflection on December 05, 2012, 09:04:18 pm
Of course. America is a very simple beast that will readily and enthusiastically allow its handlers to return to the same poisonous trough time and again. Our collective economic thinking has been so restricted to think that what happens in our economy is natural and capitalism at its best. Booms and busts are created and we keep feeding into them without questioning them. And as long as people are led to believe that they are also benefiting and that the boom will never end, they'll keep jumping for joy every time they make a little imaginary money. Meanwhile the people fueling this make billions and continue to hoard it while demonizing those who want a healthy economy as anti-job commies. But we never learn...

Please don't ever put a Fezzy post in here again. Thanks.

Why? ??? This post by Fezzy was pretty excellent.


Title: Re: The Good Post Gallery
Post by: Smid on December 05, 2012, 09:13:54 pm
Instead of one minute silence, we should all Take Five. (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=faJE92phKzI)

Link mine.

Thanks mate! I think this is my inaugural nomination in this thread!


Title: Re: The Good Post Gallery
Post by: We Have A Pope on December 05, 2012, 09:43:54 pm

Maher seems to like him, so he can't be that bad.

Bill Maher liking somebody is a liability, not an asset.

If someone can provide me with a reason not to like Bill Maher other than "he's an a-hole", I'd love to here it.  He's insanely rational and logical and tends to come out on the right side of every issue. 

He's on the board of PETA, he supports racial profiling at airports, he supports social security privatization, he supported SOPA, if he could he would be the Jerry Falwell of atheism, he has an incredibly over-inflated sense of self-importance, he's like a left-leaning Sean Hannity (except he's funny instead of angry), and he's an all around rotten guy.  How's that?


Title: Re: The Good Post Gallery
Post by: sjoyce on December 05, 2012, 09:52:46 pm

Maher seems to like him, so he can't be that bad.

Bill Maher liking somebody is a liability, not an asset.

If someone can provide me with a reason not to like Bill Maher other than "he's an a-hole", I'd love to here it.  He's insanely rational and logical and tends to come out on the right side of every issue. 

He's on the board of PETA, he supports racial profiling at airports, he supports social security privatization, he supported SOPA, if he could he would be the Jerry Falwell of atheism, he has an incredibly over-inflated sense of self-importance, he's like a left-leaning Sean Hannity (except he's funny instead of angry), and he's an all around rotten guy.  How's that?

People often post absurd, ignorant, and otherwise bad posts straight into the Deluge, but it's rare for people to post good posts straight into the Gallery. Bravo.


Title: Re: The Good Post Gallery
Post by: Lief 🐋 on December 05, 2012, 11:17:13 pm

Maher seems to like him, so he can't be that bad.

Bill Maher liking somebody is a liability, not an asset.

If someone can provide me with a reason not to like Bill Maher other than "he's an a-hole", I'd love to here it.  He's insanely rational and logical and tends to come out on the right side of every issue. 

Believing that vaccines cause autism is neither rational nor logical.


Title: Re: The Good Post Gallery
Post by: HokeyDood on December 05, 2012, 11:22:00 pm

Maher seems to like him, so he can't be that bad.

Bill Maher liking somebody is a liability, not an asset.

If someone can provide me with a reason not to like Bill Maher other than "he's an a-hole", I'd love to here it.  He's insanely rational and logical and tends to come out on the right side of every issue. 

He's on the board of PETA, he supports racial profiling at airports, he supports social security privatization, he supported SOPA, if he could he would be the Jerry Falwell of atheism, he has an incredibly over-inflated sense of self-importance, he's like a left-leaning Sean Hannity (except he's funny instead of angry), and he's an all around rotten guy.  How's that?

PETA - merely irritating.  Yea we get annoyed when they whine about a cockroach getting killed in a movie, but aren't they just stupid stoners when it comes down to it?

Racial profiling at airports - we should scrutinize EVERYBODY at the airport, but a vast majority of people who pose a threat are Middle Eastern, this is undeniable.  Sad truth, yes, but I think when it comes to airport security you have to take any measures necessary (the frisking and groping is not so let's not get into that)

SS privatization - since when?  I never heard him say this.  

SOPA - I'll give you this one

Jerry Falwell of atheism - he's absolutely right on every count about religion, but he IS an a-hole about it... I frankly don't care

left leaning Hannity and rotten guy - I would put these into category of "he's an a-hole"

I can certainly understand why people dislike him, but to me he's just incredibly funny and his politics are awesome.  


Title: Re: The Good Post Gallery
Post by: HokeyDood on December 05, 2012, 11:24:35 pm

Maher seems to like him, so he can't be that bad.

Bill Maher liking somebody is a liability, not an asset.

If someone can provide me with a reason not to like Bill Maher other than "he's an a-hole", I'd love to here it.  He's insanely rational and logical and tends to come out on the right side of every issue. 

Believing that vaccines cause autism is neither rational nor logical.

Vaccines have been shown to cause health problems in small percentages of the population.  Small, yes, but it happens.  Autism?  I would need to look into that more. 

Jesus christ, should have said nearly every issue... relentless you people are.


Title: Re: The Good Post Gallery
Post by: Lief 🐋 on December 05, 2012, 11:58:13 pm
I never really got how people elevate "constitutional" to the level of a moral imperative.  In what system of ethics does a very murky question of law affect whether or not something was right or wrong?  I get so weary of seeing people flog the Constitution in political debates as some kind of moral stance, when they're using it to conceal their support for truly vile institutions like segregation.

Alternately, "Stop quoting laws to us, we carry swords."  -Pompey the Great


Title: Re: The Good Post Gallery
Post by: Trounce-'em Theresa on December 06, 2012, 12:44:08 am
HockeyDude, the support for racial profiling alone (which, along with a degree of military-worship despite his putative left-libertarianism, he shares with compatriot bro-atheists like the odious Sam Harris) is enough to make Bill Maher somewhat questionable as a political tastemaker, to say nothing of his absolutely horrible--beyond just the level of 'asshole', really--personality, the rest of the somewhat questionable positions and beliefs that others have cited, and that weird incident where he scaremongered about the name 'Mohammed' becoming popular in the United Kingdom and other incidents of such kind. He's not 'absolutely right on every count about religion' if for no other reason because he doesn't care about treating religious people's actual ways of life with any compassion even of the unwanted and paternalistic variety, just with a kind of mockery that is often part, as with so much of the above, of a general complex of racist and, especially, classist subtext endemic to much of the bro-atheist movement.


Title: Re: The Good Post Gallery
Post by: Saturday's Cab Ride Home on December 06, 2012, 01:00:27 am
HockeyDude, the support for racial profiling alone (which, along with a degree of military-worship despite his putative left-libertarianism, he shares with compatriot bro-atheists like the odious Sam Harris) is enough to make Bill Maher somewhat questionable as a political tastemaker, to say nothing of his absolutely horrible--beyond just the level of 'asshole', really--personality, the rest of the somewhat questionable positions and beliefs that others have cited, and that weird incident where he scaremongered about the name 'Mohammed' becoming popular in the United Kingdom and other incidents of such kind. He's not 'absolutely right on every count about religion' if for no other reason because he doesn't care about what treating religious people's actually ways of life with any compassion even of the unwanted and paternalistic variety, just with a kind of mockery that is often part, as with so much of the above, of a general complex of racist and, especially, classist subtext endemic to much of the bro-atheist movement.


Title: Re: The Good Post Gallery
Post by: memphis on December 06, 2012, 01:05:10 am
In short, he doesn't give religion a get out of scrunity free pass? Absolutely scandelous!


Title: Re: The Good Post Gallery
Post by: Saturday's Cab Ride Home on December 06, 2012, 01:08:38 am
I'm actually a little embarrassed now, I didn't realize that post was in this thread so I just quoted it, copied it, and then went to Forum Community and then back to this thread to paste it rather than just hit "quote->post"


Title: Re: The Good Post Gallery
Post by: Saturday's Cab Ride Home on December 06, 2012, 01:16:53 am
But anyway Maher kind of reminds me of Christopher Hitchens in that some secular liberals will actually admire him just for what he said in his atheism despite the fact that otherwise he was an incredibly sickening individual (for f**k's sake that asshole endorsed Bush in 2004, that's really all you need to know how much of an utter scumbag he was.) Maher is nowhere near that level of course but it's not a reason to overlook all his flaws.


Title: Re: The Good Post Gallery
Post by: Trounce-'em Theresa on December 06, 2012, 01:27:04 am
In short, he doesn't give religion a get out of scrunity free pass? Absolutely scandelous!

No. In short, he doesn't treat people with, as I said, even the most unasked-for Victorian-scientist type of compassion. If you view giving folks' beliefs intellectual due diligence and engaging them with something at least resembling bona fide aesthetic and anthropological curiosity as the same as giving them a 'get out of scrutiny free pass', I'm sincerely sorry, because that's, to be frank, a staggeringly stupid equivalency to draw.


Title: Re: The Good Post Gallery
Post by: The Mikado on December 06, 2012, 01:33:31 am
Maher's terrible, terrible pseudoscientific boosterism of any sort of "natural" food or health product and denigration and suspicion of medicine is part of a systematic denial of Western medicine that is responsible for large numbers of young people going unvaccinated and people going to homeopathic witch doctors rather than receiving medical treatment.  Anyone who talks about vaccines being linked to autism is every bit as much an opponent to rational thinking as the person who thinks the world was created in six days, and is doing the world considerably more harm than the creationist is in the process.  Maher is scum.


Title: Re: The Good Post Gallery
Post by: Platypus on December 06, 2012, 06:28:28 am
Next person to mention Bill Maher in this thread gets to be Mayor of Detroit.


Title: Re: The Good Post Gallery
Post by: Simfan34 on December 06, 2012, 08:16:14 am
I just generally dislike Maher.


Title: Re: The Good Post Gallery
Post by: Trounce-'em Theresa on December 06, 2012, 09:11:45 am
Congratulations, Mayor Simfan.


Title: Re: The Good Post Gallery
Post by: Simfan34 on December 06, 2012, 10:16:00 am
Congratulations, Mayor Simfan.

I've been following events in Detroit since 2003.


Title: Re: The Good Post Gallery
Post by: Insula Dei on December 06, 2012, 11:54:36 am
Posting this directly into this thread: Simfan would be a horrible mayor of Detroit.


Title: Re: The Good Post Gallery
Post by: Come grasp the mighty avatar of our admin on December 06, 2012, 12:26:06 pm
Slimy little scumbag. Wouldn't even piss on him in a fire.
I disagree.

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

Apologize.


Title: Re: The Good Post Gallery
Post by: Grumpy Santa on December 06, 2012, 02:51:24 pm
I drove through just to check it out when I was in the neighborhood, touring the Badlands. It was quite desolate and depressing, like most rural areas. What was notably different was that many Natives were out walking around along the Highway, something no non-Native rural would be caught dead doing in their neck of the woods. FWIW, the tour guide at Rushmore said the gov't has given the tribe a bazillion dollars (precisely) in compensation for screwing them over back in the day regarding the Black Hills. But the Injuns won't take the money, so it just sits in an account somewhere getting bigger day after day. And yet they all live in squalor. Go figure out a Native.

Yes, they're hard to understand - having honor and pride and so forth..





Title: Re: The Good Post Gallery
Post by: A Strange Reflection on December 06, 2012, 03:49:52 pm
I never really got how people elevate "constitutional" to the level of a moral imperative.  In what system of ethics does a very murky question of law affect whether or not something was right or wrong?  I get so weary of seeing people flog the Constitution in political debates as some kind of moral stance, when they're using it to conceal their support for truly vile institutions like segregation.

Alternately, "Stop quoting laws to us, we carry swords."  -Pompey the Great

This is so true.


Title: Re: The Good Post Gallery
Post by: memphis on December 06, 2012, 03:58:51 pm

Ok, Phil, here's what I don't get. The politicians you choose as your favorites, like Berlusconi and Santorum, are known for being bullies who roll over their opponents. Take a lesson from people like krazen and Sam Spade–you need to own that this is your preference. If you talk about how great someone like Santorum or Berlusconi is, when they pull stunts like this, then you need to be triumphalist and not complain that people aren't being fair to the poor guy. Santorum pounds his adversaries into the dust, like in this case - he doesn't play the victim himself. People aren't going to have sympathy that his critics are "mean" to him after he torpedoed a treaty defending the rights of the disabled. He did this, you should take pride or call out people who disagree with him for being weak. Not many people have a second act like Santorum did - Rod Grams and Conrad Burns lost in the same election and they're footnotes to history. Santorum's out killing treaties in the Senate and running for President as not-Romney.

I already know your response to this, but I don't care--if you think jerks make the best elected officials, then recognize that jerks can't be victims. Harry Reid is a jerk who takes no prisoners, and there's not a soul who would be taken seriously for saying "stop being mean to Harry!"


Title: Re: The Good Post Gallery
Post by: k-onmmunist on December 06, 2012, 04:01:22 pm

Ok, Phil, here's what I don't get. The politicians you choose as your favorites, like Berlusconi and Santorum, are known for being bullies who roll over their opponents. Take a lesson from people like krazen and Sam Spade–you need to own that this is your preference. If you talk about how great someone like Santorum or Berlusconi is, when they pull stunts like this, then you need to be triumphalist and not complain that people aren't being fair to the poor guy. Santorum pounds his adversaries into the dust, like in this case - he doesn't play the victim himself. People aren't going to have sympathy that his critics are "mean" to him after he torpedoed a treaty defending the rights of the disabled. He did this, you should take pride or call out people who disagree with him for being weak. Not many people have a second act like Santorum did - Rod Grams and Conrad Burns lost in the same election and they're footnotes to history. Santorum's out killing treaties in the Senate and running for President as not-Romney.

I already know your response to this, but I don't care--if you think jerks make the best elected officials, then recognize that jerks can't be victims. Harry Reid is a jerk who takes no prisoners, and there's not a soul who would be taken seriously for saying "stop being mean to Harry!"

about time someone called him out on it.


Title: Re: The Good Post Gallery
Post by: We Have A Pope on December 06, 2012, 04:11:29 pm

Ok, Phil, here's what I don't get. The politicians you choose as your favorites, like Berlusconi and Santorum, are known for being bullies who roll over their opponents. Take a lesson from people like krazen and Sam Spade–you need to own that this is your preference. If you talk about how great someone like Santorum or Berlusconi is, when they pull stunts like this, then you need to be triumphalist and not complain that people aren't being fair to the poor guy. Santorum pounds his adversaries into the dust, like in this case - he doesn't play the victim himself. People aren't going to have sympathy that his critics are "mean" to him after he torpedoed a treaty defending the rights of the disabled. He did this, you should take pride or call out people who disagree with him for being weak. Not many people have a second act like Santorum did - Rod Grams and Conrad Burns lost in the same election and they're footnotes to history. Santorum's out killing treaties in the Senate and running for President as not-Romney.

I already know your response to this, but I don't care--if you think jerks make the best elected officials, then recognize that jerks can't be victims. Harry Reid is a jerk who takes no prisoners, and there's not a soul who would be taken seriously for saying "stop being mean to Harry!"

about time someone called him out on it.

Yeah, I tip my hat to Brittain33 for that post.


Title: Re: The Good Post Gallery
Post by: Saturday's Cab Ride Home on December 06, 2012, 11:26:16 pm
Alas such an otherwise great post had to have the erroneousness mention of Rod Grams, who lost in 2000.


Title: Re: The Good Post Gallery
Post by: Trounce-'em Theresa on December 07, 2012, 12:29:59 am
Heh, I admit to more or less being beyond hope. :) It appears that the illustrious Moses Maimonides (wow) seems to have gotten lost on me. I must have been reading up on rock layers, isotopes, the Vikings, or maybe Shakespeare. Mikado, do enlighten us. Should be interesting.

Your dismissal of the preeminent scholar of the 12th century (and certainly a writer at least equal in influence to Shakespeare) shows your own arrogance more than anything else.  Here's a Jew living in the Islamic Almoravid Empire writing to an audience that included most of the scholars of Christendom and the Islamic world.  He could draw on the works of his great contemporary, the Islamic theologian Averroes, as well as the ancient Greeks, as much as he could draw on the Talmud.  His work would influence thinkers Jewish, Christian (esp. including St. Thomas Aquinas, who was very familiar with his work), and Muslim alike.  Everyone who was a scholar in the High Middle Ages read Rambam's works, whether they agreed or not.

Rambam's most famous works are his commentary on the Talmud and his Guide For the Perplexed, a powerful book that takes on basically every major theological question.

The Talmud is a collection of centuries of rabbinical commentary on every word in the Torah.  It is tens of thousands of pages long and presents at least three or four interpretations of every rule, action, and symbol in the first five books of the Bible, formatted as "Rabbi X said a, but Rabbi Y said b.  Rabbi Z thought that Rabbi X had a point, but that he went too far..."  He boiled centuries of debate into a codification of the Talmud as containing 613 Laws, and enunciating exactly what those were and how one was to follow them.  The Mishneh (his summary of the Talmudic interpretation of Jewish law) is a critically important book in that it essentially is Judaism: it's still the binding authority towards questions of how an observant Jew follows the laws of Moses.  It's one thing to talk about the need for a head covering and fringed garments, but how should they be designed?  Consult the Talmud.  Can execution be justified without a Sanhedrin (Jewish religious court) carrying out the trial?  Consult the Talmud.  Why can't a Jew mix dairy and meat products despite that not actually being a law in the Torah itself?  Rambam has an answer for you.  Halakhic Law, even down to the very idea that there are 613 Holy Laws and not 612 or 614, is the product of Rambam.

The Guide to the Perplexed is a much more user-friendly document than the Mishneh, and is the document that the scholars of the ummah and Christendom were more likely to encounter.  The Rambam pioneered the mixing of Aristotle and religious texts, putting classical Greek thought to the service of monotheism in the same manner as Averroes did for Islam and Aquinas did for Christianity (both of whom cribbed from Maimonides).  His biggest target (much like the Muslims he lived among) was efforts to anthropomorphize the deity, emphasizing how God was so utterly alien and beyond human conception that the very language and thoughts we use cannot possibly capture him.  Much as Muhammad would often (as in, he says it all over the Qu'ran) say that "Allah is greater than the things men ascribe to him," Maimonides rejected the idea that people could even imagine or conceive of God in any way meaningful to the human mind, an idea diametrically opposed to the God who became a man that the Christians worshiped.  Maimonides grappled with all of the big questions, including the old classic, "why does evil exist?"




Title: Re: The Good Post Gallery
Post by: SPC on December 07, 2012, 01:07:32 am
Alas such an otherwise great post had to have the erroneousness mention of Rod Grams, who lost in 2000.

Rod Grams did lose an election (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minnesota%27s_8th_congressional_district) in 2006, just not a Senate election.


Title: Re: The Good Post Gallery
Post by: Northam for Governor '17 on December 08, 2012, 06:11:47 pm
Of course, and I supported it in real time. The idea of branding cohorts of folks as second class, inferior, and unwanted, is facially just plain evil to me. It does not comport with my conscience. The idea that the libertarian right to control of property should be allowed to trump avoiding slapping scarlet letters on folks suggests a value system that lacks peripheral vision, to put it most euphemistically.


Title: Re: The Good Post Gallery
Post by: Simfan34 on December 08, 2012, 09:22:55 pm
High turnout is not a good thing if a bunch of ignorant and uninformed people are voting.  I'd rather there be just 30% turnout if the 30% are very informed and engaged on the issues.


Title: Re: The Good Post Gallery
Post by: Filuwaúrdjan on December 08, 2012, 09:28:14 pm
Oh, look. The 'ironic' Uncle Tom cheers on the open racist.


Title: Re: The Good Post Gallery
Post by: Keystone Phil on December 08, 2012, 09:34:10 pm

Ok, Phil, here's what I don't get. The politicians you choose as your favorites, like Berlusconi and Santorum, are known for being bullies who roll over their opponents. Take a lesson from people like krazen and Sam Spade–you need to own that this is your preference. If you talk about how great someone like Santorum or Berlusconi is, when they pull stunts like this, then you need to be triumphalist and not complain that people aren't being fair to the poor guy. Santorum pounds his adversaries into the dust, like in this case - he doesn't play the victim himself. People aren't going to have sympathy that his critics are "mean" to him after he torpedoed a treaty defending the rights of the disabled. He did this, you should take pride or call out people who disagree with him for being weak. Not many people have a second act like Santorum did - Rod Grams and Conrad Burns lost in the same election and they're footnotes to history. Santorum's out killing treaties in the Senate and running for President as not-Romney.

I already know your response to this, but I don't care--if you think jerks make the best elected officials, then recognize that jerks can't be victims. Harry Reid is a jerk who takes no prisoners, and there's not a soul who would be taken seriously for saying "stop being mean to Harry!"

about time someone called him out on it.

Yeah, I tip my hat to Brittain33 for that post.

Yes, excellent post if you ignore some of the glaring factual inaccuracies! When pointed out to him, he didn't bother to respond. Instead, he just posted a link to anothe article that bashed Santorum. Looks like someone knows they were wrong. Wouldn't be the first time. Won't be the last.

I'm also not totally convinced that brittain and memphis aren't the same person.


Title: Re: The Good Post Gallery
Post by: Simfan34 on December 08, 2012, 09:46:54 pm
Oh, look. The 'ironic' Uncle Tom cheers on the open racist.

But this too:

High turnout is not a good thing if a bunch of ignorant and uninformed people are voting.  I'd rather there be just 30% turnout if the 30% are very informed and engaged on the issues.

I guess you don't quite get the point of democracy...

(obligatory "democracy is the worst form of government except all the others")

The solution, of course, is not to discourage turnout but to make sure there is both high turnout and an educated electorate.


Title: Re: The Good Post Gallery
Post by: SUSAN CRUSHBONE on December 09, 2012, 02:49:06 am

Ok, Phil, here's what I don't get. The politicians you choose as your favorites, like Berlusconi and Santorum, are known for being bullies who roll over their opponents. Take a lesson from people like krazen and Sam Spade–you need to own that this is your preference. If you talk about how great someone like Santorum or Berlusconi is, when they pull stunts like this, then you need to be triumphalist and not complain that people aren't being fair to the poor guy. Santorum pounds his adversaries into the dust, like in this case - he doesn't play the victim himself. People aren't going to have sympathy that his critics are "mean" to him after he torpedoed a treaty defending the rights of the disabled. He did this, you should take pride or call out people who disagree with him for being weak. Not many people have a second act like Santorum did - Rod Grams and Conrad Burns lost in the same election and they're footnotes to history. Santorum's out killing treaties in the Senate and running for President as not-Romney.

I already know your response to this, but I don't care--if you think jerks make the best elected officials, then recognize that jerks can't be victims. Harry Reid is a jerk who takes no prisoners, and there's not a soul who would be taken seriously for saying "stop being mean to Harry!"

about time someone called him out on it.

Yeah, I tip my hat to Brittain33 for that post.

Yes, excellent post if you ignore some of the glaring factual inaccuracies! When pointed out to him, he didn't bother to respond. Instead, he just posted a link to anothe article that bashed Santorum. Looks like someone knows they were wrong. Wouldn't be the first time. Won't be the last.

I'm also not totally convinced that brittain and memphis aren't the same person.


Title: Re: The Good Post Gallery
Post by: Brittain33 on December 09, 2012, 01:25:03 pm
Yes, excellent post if you ignore some of the glaring factual inaccuracies! When pointed out to him, he didn't bother to respond. Instead, he just posted a link to anothe article that bashed Santorum. Looks like someone knows they were wrong. Wouldn't be the first time. Won't be the last.

I let it go because I made my point and your responses weren't particularly relevant - that you don't support Berlusconi as much as you used to, and that Santorum wasn't a "bully" in this case. Both objections seemed pretty pointless and would just lead to back-and-forth with no conclusion, but I can close the loop now.

1. Berlusconi's been a corrupt bully for as long as he's been in office, not just since Bunga Bunga came out, but if you don't support him, then sub in Chris Christie and Tommy Thompson, they fit the bill as well.

2. It's your opinion he's not being much of a bully in this case. That's debatable, but whatever, he's a bully in his normal behavior, it's why he was such an effective vessel for Republican rage in 2012 until he started making truly stupid comments about college educations, it's why Kerrey made that comment that you disagree with so much, and picking on the disabled who were supporting this treaty isn't a profile in courage. You can disagree, but I disagree, and there's no glaring factual error.

3. But I got Rod Grams wrong! I mixed up my Dem 1994 revenge cycles. True true.

Quote
I'm also not totally convinced that brittain and memphis aren't the same person.

That's a nice comparison that does me more favor than I deserve. Memphis is a calmer guy than I am.


Title: Re: The Good Post Gallery
Post by: Keystone Phil on December 09, 2012, 01:54:37 pm
I don't support Berlusconi "as much as" I used to. Ok, you're slowly getting there. Maybe by the next post, you'll fully come around and just admit fault.

The rest of your post is the usual silliness. "Santorum picking on the disabled that support this." I must have missed where he kicked Dole's wheelchair or something. Whatever. You're tiring. Go dig up another Santorum hit piece article and try to pass it off as news.


Title: Re: The Good Post Gallery
Post by: Simfan34 on December 09, 2012, 09:01:24 pm
"Uneducated" people voting is a legitimate and big problem, and it's one of the reasons that we have a republican system rather than a purely democratic system. The "Founders" were terrified of an uneducated, selfish mob voting to continuously give themselves things with no restraint; Jefferson in particular advocated for a yeoman society to, among other reasons, allow farmers time to educate themselves politically during the winter/non-growing seasons. He thought Hamilton's industrialization goals would breed a diminished civic intelligence and conciousness due to physical and mental overtaxation.

I don't generally care for Jefferson (I like Hamilton much more), but he was right in that regard. There are at least three solutions to this problem: A) remove the "right" to vote by fundamentally changing our system, B) restrict the "right" to vote either at the bottom (who can vote) or at the top (what they can vote on), or C) have a more educated electorate through various methods. All could work under the proper auspices and specifications, and they all could easily fail under others.


Title: Re: The Good Post Gallery
Post by: A Strange Reflection on December 09, 2012, 09:03:53 pm
Oh, come off it.  That thread was insanely inappropriate.  How insulting is it to the gay and lesbian community to try to link a despicable excuse for a human being like Ann Coulter to them?


Title: Re: The Good Post Gallery
Post by: HokeyDood on December 10, 2012, 11:44:12 am
click for ze context

Massive FOs in theory and in practice. The shortcomings of unions, both private and public, tend to deal with the fact that they're operating in environments hostile to their existence 99.9% of the time, at least in the United States. And even so, the worst of the worst in terms of corruption or lawbreaking (which, it should be noted are both very rare) are nothing compared to the organized money power that corrupts and controls American political and economic life.


Title: Re: The Good Post Gallery
Post by: k-onmmunist on December 10, 2012, 12:13:17 pm
I don't support Berlusconi "as much as" I used to. Ok, you're slowly getting there. Maybe by the next post, you'll fully come around and just admit fault.

The rest of your post is the usual silliness. "Santorum picking on the disabled that support this." I must have missed where he kicked Dole's wheelchair or something. Whatever. You're tiring. Go dig up another Santorum hit piece article and try to pass it off as news.

i'm still waiting for you to defend his obnoxiousness over lgbt rights.


Title: Re: The Good Post Gallery
Post by: Keystone Phil on December 10, 2012, 12:19:10 pm
I don't support Berlusconi "as much as" I used to. Ok, you're slowly getting there. Maybe by the next post, you'll fully come around and just admit fault.

The rest of your post is the usual silliness. "Santorum picking on the disabled that support this." I must have missed where he kicked Dole's wheelchair or something. Whatever. You're tiring. Go dig up another Santorum hit piece article and try to pass it off as news.

i'm still waiting for you to defend his obnoxiousness over lgbt rights.

That's nice.


Title: Re: The Good Post Gallery
Post by: k-onmmunist on December 10, 2012, 12:20:03 pm
I don't support Berlusconi "as much as" I used to. Ok, you're slowly getting there. Maybe by the next post, you'll fully come around and just admit fault.

The rest of your post is the usual silliness. "Santorum picking on the disabled that support this." I must have missed where he kicked Dole's wheelchair or something. Whatever. You're tiring. Go dig up another Santorum hit piece article and try to pass it off as news.

i'm still waiting for you to defend his obnoxiousness over lgbt rights.

That's nice.

or is santorum some sort of messianic figure to you who is incapable of being wrong?


Title: Re: The Good Post Gallery
Post by: True Federalist on December 10, 2012, 12:42:42 pm
I don't support Berlusconi "as much as" I used to. Ok, you're slowly getting there. Maybe by the next post, you'll fully come around and just admit fault.

The rest of your post is the usual silliness. "Santorum picking on the disabled that support this." I must have missed where he kicked Dole's wheelchair or something. Whatever. You're tiring. Go dig up another Santorum hit piece article and try to pass it off as news.

i'm still waiting for you to defend his obnoxiousness over lgbt rights.

That's nice.

or is santorum some sort of messianic figure to you who is incapable of being wrong?

I think Phil knows Santorum is no messiah.  As for some of the supporters here of the Obamessiah...


Title: Re: The Good Post Gallery
Post by: k-onmmunist on December 10, 2012, 12:45:12 pm
I don't support Berlusconi "as much as" I used to. Ok, you're slowly getting there. Maybe by the next post, you'll fully come around and just admit fault.

The rest of your post is the usual silliness. "Santorum picking on the disabled that support this." I must have missed where he kicked Dole's wheelchair or something. Whatever. You're tiring. Go dig up another Santorum hit piece article and try to pass it off as news.

i'm still waiting for you to defend his obnoxiousness over lgbt rights.

That's nice.

or is santorum some sort of messianic figure to you who is incapable of being wrong?

I think Phil knows Santorum is no messiah.  As for some of the supporters here of the Obamessiah...

well, yeah, they're pretty awful too


Title: Re: The Good Post Gallery
Post by: Keystone Phil on December 10, 2012, 12:47:31 pm
I don't support Berlusconi "as much as" I used to. Ok, you're slowly getting there. Maybe by the next post, you'll fully come around and just admit fault.

The rest of your post is the usual silliness. "Santorum picking on the disabled that support this." I must have missed where he kicked Dole's wheelchair or something. Whatever. You're tiring. Go dig up another Santorum hit piece article and try to pass it off as news.

i'm still waiting for you to defend his obnoxiousness over lgbt rights.

That's nice.

or is santorum some sort of messianic figure to you who is incapable of being wrong?

Listen, I've been through this probably literally one hundred times with people here. I don't answer to you especially when you have your mind made up. Stop trolling me. I know you're friends with one of the other haters but you don't have to emulate his routine with me.

But for your information, I've admitted plenty of times when Santorum is wrong.


Title: Re: The Good Post Gallery
Post by: k-onmmunist on December 10, 2012, 01:07:48 pm
I don't support Berlusconi "as much as" I used to. Ok, you're slowly getting there. Maybe by the next post, you'll fully come around and just admit fault.

The rest of your post is the usual silliness. "Santorum picking on the disabled that support this." I must have missed where he kicked Dole's wheelchair or something. Whatever. You're tiring. Go dig up another Santorum hit piece article and try to pass it off as news.

i'm still waiting for you to defend his obnoxiousness over lgbt rights.

That's nice.

or is santorum some sort of messianic figure to you who is incapable of being wrong?

Listen, I've been through this probably literally one hundred times with people here. I don't answer to you especially when you have your mind made up. Stop trolling me. I know you're friends with one of the other haters but you don't have to emulate his routine with me.

But for your information, I've admitted plenty of times when Santorum is wrong.

why do you take this conspiracist attitude with me? i have no idea who you're referring to.


Title: Re: The Good Post Gallery
Post by: Bacon! 🔥 on December 10, 2012, 02:01:13 pm
guys plz stop arguing in the good post gallery take it somewhere else :)


Title: Re: The Good Post Gallery
Post by: Lief 🐋 on December 10, 2012, 03:26:00 pm
I can't say I feel bad about this. Sounds like good news.

You're disgusting.

Cheering the news that a dictator has fallen ill and might not longer be in power is horrible now?
Chavez is a democratically elected president in a country where the opposition controls most of the media. His governing style may be authoritarian, but he is not a dictator.


Thanks.  I needed a good laugh.
You have no reason to laugh.
 
Its a fact that the government controls only 5% of the TV channels. The rest are overwhelmingly owned by a few Venezuelan upper class families that hates Chavez. Its true that they have to show some of his speeches and other government propaganda, but it is just 24 minutes a day on average and only the "true believers" watch that stuff.

Newspapers are also controlled by the Venezuelan upper class. In radio its more even, because there is a number of local radio stations run by cooperatives that supports Chavez. I would still say its 60/40 in favour of the opposition.
 
But TV is what matters in Venezuelan and its dominated by very Conservative capital interests and are highly critical towards Chavez.

About the TV market situation:

http://www.cepr.net/index.php/publications/reports/who-dominates-the-media-in-venezuela (http://www.cepr.net/index.php/publications/reports/who-dominates-the-media-in-venezuela) 


Title: Re: The Good Post Gallery
Post by: True Federalist on December 10, 2012, 03:42:38 pm
Let me add here, the reply I just made there.

TV is what matters in Venezuelan and its dominated by very Conservative capital interests and are highly critical towards Chavez.

About the TV market situation:

http://www.cepr.net/index.php/publications/reports/who-dominates-the-media-in-venezuela (http://www.cepr.net/index.php/publications/reports/who-dominates-the-media-in-venezuela) 

So you think the yanking of RCTV's broadcast license by Chavez for opposing him means that there is a dominant opposition media that is free from the threat of similar reprisals?  Thanks for giving me another laugh.


Title: Re: The Good Post Gallery
Post by: politicus on December 10, 2012, 05:22:48 pm
Let me add here, the reply I just made there.

TV is what matters in Venezuelan and its dominated by very Conservative capital interests and are highly critical towards Chavez.

About the TV market situation:

http://www.cepr.net/index.php/publications/reports/who-dominates-the-media-in-venezuela (http://www.cepr.net/index.php/publications/reports/who-dominates-the-media-in-venezuela)  

So you think the yanking of RCTV's broadcast license by Chavez for opposing him means that there is a dominant opposition media that is free from the threat of similar reprisals?  Thanks for giving me another laugh.
Lets continue this discussion in the relevant thread and try to be less condescending in your replies, I am sure I know more about this subject than you do.


Title: Re: The Good Post Gallery
Post by: Trounce-'em Theresa on December 10, 2012, 06:08:06 pm
Women don't tend to obsess over specific fields of minutaie the way men do. A lot of the political gossip here is very analagous to female oriented celebrity magazines, but there is nothing they're into that compares to creating a national swing map by county. That's something only a guy would do.
...and you wonder why more women don't join the forum. Not because of s--t like this, but because we're too busy reading superficial celebrity gossip magazines. Obviously.

This seems to implicate you as a woman. I suggest you continue the admirable attitude of that post in response to the avalanche of creepy messages you're now bound to receive.

Remember to show compassion. Most men here are very sad and lonely and it then comes naturally to try and pass the blame. It's more worthy of pity than anger.


Title: Re: The Good Post Gallery
Post by: Lief 🐋 on December 10, 2012, 08:10:18 pm
The old theological debates between jmfcst and supersoulty were the best.

Thank you, angus, for revealing the futility of this thread, or the discussion of any 'favorites of the forum' or even discussion of the quality of the forum in general - because the forum is a shadow of its former self.

Yes, there are still worthies here in shadow form, but after one of the pantheon was ripped out for nothing - just to demonstrate the power - well, here we all are.  Sad days.

rip jfcmts


Title: Re: The Good Post Gallery
Post by: A Strange Reflection on December 10, 2012, 10:38:32 pm
I don't support Berlusconi "as much as" I used to. Ok, you're slowly getting there. Maybe by the next post, you'll fully come around and just admit fault.

The rest of your post is the usual silliness. "Santorum picking on the disabled that support this." I must have missed where he kicked Dole's wheelchair or something. Whatever. You're tiring. Go dig up another Santorum hit piece article and try to pass it off as news.

i'm still waiting for you to defend his obnoxiousness over lgbt rights.

That's nice.

or is santorum some sort of messianic figure to you who is incapable of being wrong?

I think Phil knows Santorum is no messiah.  As for some of the supporters here of the Obamessiah...

There is none of the sort since late 2009-early 2010.


Title: Re: The Good Post Gallery
Post by: opebo on December 11, 2012, 04:02:59 pm
The old theological debates between jmfcst and supersoulty were the best.

Thank you, angus, for revealing the futility of this thread, or the discussion of any 'favorites of the forum' or even discussion of the quality of the forum in general - because the forum is a shadow of its former self.

Yes, there are still worthies here in shadow form, but after one of the pantheon was ripped out for nothing - just to demonstrate the power - well, here we all are.  Sad days.

rip jfcmts

Thanks lief, perhaps not surprisingly, the censors removed the original post - apparently it is 'trolling' to remember the purges they committed in the past.

jmfcst is to removed from history by the Ministry of Truth.


Title: Re: The Good Post Gallery
Post by: Grumpy Santa on December 11, 2012, 04:11:44 pm
The old theological debates between jmfcst and supersoulty were the best.

Thank you, angus, for revealing the futility of this thread, or the discussion of any 'favorites of the forum' or even discussion of the quality of the forum in general - because the forum is a shadow of its former self.

Yes, there are still worthies here in shadow form, but after one of the pantheon was ripped out for nothing - just to demonstrate the power - well, here we all are.  Sad days.

rip jfcmts

Thanks lief, perhaps not surprisingly, the censors removed the original post - apparently it is 'trolling' to remember the purges they committed in the past.

jmfcst is to removed from history by the Ministry of Truth.

You got death points for that?


Title: Re: The Good Post Gallery
Post by: opebo on December 11, 2012, 04:13:29 pm
The old theological debates between jmfcst and supersoulty were the best.

Thank you, angus, for revealing the futility of this thread, or the discussion of any 'favorites of the forum' or even discussion of the quality of the forum in general - because the forum is a shadow of its former self.

Yes, there are still worthies here in shadow form, but after one of the pantheon was ripped out for nothing - just to demonstrate the power - well, here we all are.  Sad days.

rip jfcmts

Thanks lief, perhaps not surprisingly, the censors removed the original post - apparently it is 'trolling' to remember the purges they committed in the past.

jmfcst is to removed from history by the Ministry of Truth.

You got death points for that?

That's right, five death points for remembering.


Title: Re: The Good Post Gallery
Post by: Grumpy Santa on December 11, 2012, 04:18:45 pm
The old theological debates between jmfcst and supersoulty were the best.

Thank you, angus, for revealing the futility of this thread, or the discussion of any 'favorites of the forum' or even discussion of the quality of the forum in general - because the forum is a shadow of its former self.

Yes, there are still worthies here in shadow form, but after one of the pantheon was ripped out for nothing - just to demonstrate the power - well, here we all are.  Sad days.

rip jfcmts

Thanks lief, perhaps not surprisingly, the censors removed the original post - apparently it is 'trolling' to remember the purges they committed in the past.

jmfcst is to removed from history by the Ministry of Truth.

You got death points for that?

That's right, five death points for remembering.

I'll memorialize it for you if I can.


Title: Re: The Good Post Gallery
Post by: Simfan34 on December 12, 2012, 12:45:29 pm
That's right, five death points for remembering.

Can the mods come and justify this? Because the way opebo puts it, it sounds really irrational. I'm sure there's a logical explanation for this.


Title: Re: The Good Post Gallery
Post by: SUSAN CRUSHBONE on December 12, 2012, 12:53:00 pm
Welcome to Atlas Forum, Simfan.


Title: Re: The Good Post Gallery
Post by: opebo on December 12, 2012, 01:05:18 pm
That's right, five death points for remembering.

Can the mods come and justify this? Because the way opebo puts it, it sounds really irrational. I'm sure there's a logical explanation for this.

They don't want jmfcst or what was done to him talked about, Simfan.  It is quite rational/logical.


Title: Re: The Good Post Gallery
Post by: Trounce-'em Theresa on December 12, 2012, 07:07:11 pm
Haha, the latter should all be guillotined. 

This is the correct answer. Their mansions can then be turned into public housing and/or state-funded, free-to-visit museums.

Guillotined?  Hmmm... slippery slope. 

Certainly it is a sad reflection on American perceptions that most would see those nightmarish little cretins as somehow having "earned" their lofty perch in society, while so-called "welfare queens" continue on by leeching of their success, though.  The "rich kids of Instagram" are most definitely the true parasites. 

Al/Al (normal), BTW. 


Title: Re: The Good Post Gallery
Post by: A Strange Reflection on December 13, 2012, 04:15:54 am
Memphis, for all your ridicule of womens' studies, and I say this as someone who has done his fair share of ridiculing of those things, you seem to have a very limited understanding of how patriarchal structures are supposed to work. I say supposed in order to facilitate a common ground here.

It's not about legal or physical barriers. Have you never known a woman intimately? And I don't necessarily mean sleeping with one. Just knowing a woman pretty well is sufficient to see this. I had a girlfriend who avoided working for investment banks. Not because she didn't want to, because she did. Not because they said they didn't like women, because they actually did the opposite, claiming to want more female employees. But because she very acutely felt the barriers of the sexist culture of those places and the way society expects men to do such jobs better. That's just a tiny anecdotal example from a country usually considered one of the most gender-equal in the world.

You're clearly viewing this from the perspective of a man. Which is natural since you are one. But the whole idea of tolerance and human rights is that we attempt to understand those coming from other positions in life. Not only do you fail in that but you seem uninterested to even try, content to retain misogynist positions. You should really reconsider that. 


Title: Re: The Good Post Gallery
Post by: Gustaf on December 13, 2012, 04:38:48 am
I should clearly post more about womens' issues if it makes even Antonio like my posts. :P


Title: Re: The Good Post Gallery
Post by: A Strange Reflection on December 13, 2012, 04:51:35 am
I should clearly post more about womens' issues if it makes even Antonio like my posts. :P

That's what I found particularly infuriating about our post-DSK affair feud. I have for long been a passionate advocate of gender theories, and very sensitive to displays of patriarchal/reactionary mentalities, so being cast as a sexist or even a rape apologist was truly unbearable to me.

(I will admit that some of my comments, in the wake of the shock that the affair was to me as a French leftist, have been poorly thought or misguided - but I also maintain that you have a disturbing tendency to judge people very early and to argue against strawmen instead of against them)


Title: Re: The Good Post Gallery
Post by: Gustaf on December 13, 2012, 05:09:37 am
I should clearly post more about womens' issues if it makes even Antonio like my posts. :P

That's what I found particularly infuriating about our post-DSK affair feud. I have for long been a passionate advocate of gender theories, and very sensitive to displays of patriarchal/reactionary mentalities, so being cast as a sexist or even a rape apologist was truly unbearable to me.

(I will admit that some of my comments, in the wake of the shock that the affair was to me as a French leftist, have been poorly thought or misguided - but I also maintain that you have a disturbing tendency to judge people very early and to argue against strawmen instead of against them)

Well, when someone opens a discussion by labeling me a bigot I become a lot less inclined to be charitable in debate. One might even think of such behaviour as a disturbing tendency to judge people very early and arguing against a strawman.

But I can't say I care that much about how you rationalize that exchange afterwards. If you want to think that I'm characterized by judging people or debating strawmen, that's fine. I'm sure Memphis would agree with you by now... ;) 


Title: Re: The Good Post Gallery
Post by: A Strange Reflection on December 13, 2012, 05:16:35 am
I should clearly post more about womens' issues if it makes even Antonio like my posts. :P

That's what I found particularly infuriating about our post-DSK affair feud. I have for long been a passionate advocate of gender theories, and very sensitive to displays of patriarchal/reactionary mentalities, so being cast as a sexist or even a rape apologist was truly unbearable to me.

(I will admit that some of my comments, in the wake of the shock that the affair was to me as a French leftist, have been poorly thought or misguided - but I also maintain that you have a disturbing tendency to judge people very early and to argue against strawmen instead of against them)

Well, when someone opens a discussion by labeling me a bigot I become a lot less inclined to be charitable in debate. One might even think of such behaviour as a disturbing tendency to judge people very early and arguing against a strawman.

But I can't say I care that much about how you rationalize that exchange afterwards. If you want to think that I'm characterized by judging people or debating strawmen, that's fine. I'm sure Memphis would agree with you by now... ;) 

And I labeled you a bigot after how made a comment about how this wasn't surprising since DSK was French, a comment which you later explained was humorous and admitted that, if serious, it would indeed have been a sign of bigotry. I think my misunderstanding of the tone of your comment is fairly understandable in context.

Now, I admitted I did overreact in certain instances, but I encourage you to also face your own issues and flaws - unless you prefer to think everything was my fault.

Your post against Memphis was substantial, comprehensive, and went deep to the core of the argument, hence my posting it here.


Title: Re: The Good Post Gallery
Post by: Gustaf on December 13, 2012, 05:47:36 am
I should clearly post more about womens' issues if it makes even Antonio like my posts. :P

That's what I found particularly infuriating about our post-DSK affair feud. I have for long been a passionate advocate of gender theories, and very sensitive to displays of patriarchal/reactionary mentalities, so being cast as a sexist or even a rape apologist was truly unbearable to me.

(I will admit that some of my comments, in the wake of the shock that the affair was to me as a French leftist, have been poorly thought or misguided - but I also maintain that you have a disturbing tendency to judge people very early and to argue against strawmen instead of against them)

Well, when someone opens a discussion by labeling me a bigot I become a lot less inclined to be charitable in debate. One might even think of such behaviour as a disturbing tendency to judge people very early and arguing against a strawman.

But I can't say I care that much about how you rationalize that exchange afterwards. If you want to think that I'm characterized by judging people or debating strawmen, that's fine. I'm sure Memphis would agree with you by now... ;) 

And I labeled you a bigot after how made a comment about how this wasn't surprising since DSK was French, a comment which you later explained was humorous and admitted that, if serious, it would indeed have been a sign of bigotry. I think my misunderstanding of the tone of your comment is fairly understandable in context.

Now, I admitted I did overreact in certain instances, but I encourage you to also face your own issues and flaws - unless you prefer to think everything was my fault.

Your post against Memphis was substantial, comprehensive, and went deep to the core of the argument, hence my posting it here.

That's not what I said - I characterized rape as a cultural misunderstanding which is hard to take seriously. It'd make me a pretty strange person if I meant it. It was a humorous way of conveying the point that French men are known for sexist behaviour which is also something that became a central part of the debate everywhere (except maybe in France) after the incident.

You were reacting very emotionally so in that context I guess it's understandable that you'd lash out at people.

Anyway, thanks for quoting my post, it wasn't my intention to drag this out again. It was just a humourous observation since I got 2 posts quoted into here from that discussion.


Title: Re: The Good Post Gallery
Post by: A Strange Reflection on December 13, 2012, 08:10:16 pm
Anyways...

Discrimination on the basis of race: reprehensible.
Discrimination on the basis of gender: reprehensible.
Discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation: reprehensible.
Discrimination on the basis of weight: hahah fatty go kill yourself


Title: Re: The Good Post Gallery
Post by: A Strange Reflection on December 13, 2012, 08:13:29 pm
Nothing of this makes discrimination and bullying against fat people OK. Also, not everybody "chooses" to be fat.


Title: Re: The Good Post Gallery
Post by: Northeast Rep Snowball on December 14, 2012, 12:50:54 pm
Nothing of this makes discrimination and bullying against fat people OK. Also, not everybody "chooses" to be fat.
.
I guess so, but if someone had some sort of legal penalty for being black vs someone having some sort of penatly for weight, I would be far more complaint with the weight one. I feel that weight is more comparable to an addiction or something of that sort then race, sex or orientation.


Title: Re: The Good Post Gallery
Post by: sjoyce on December 14, 2012, 03:44:47 pm
I'm sure I'd get crucified by the usual suspects if I even started to make this political..... But seriously, how often does this have to happen before we actually do something about it?

Jesus ::)

Hey, if only the gun laws were less strict then the kids would carry some firearms to defend themselves.

Go to Hell. I don't care if you or anyone else reports me. Go to Hell.

Your post in that thread also belongs here too.

I'm sure I'd get crucified by the usual suspects if I even started to make this political..... But seriously, how often does this have to happen before we actually do something about it?

Jesus ::)

Hey, if only the gun laws were less strict then the kids would carry some firearms to defend themselves.

No. Just, no. Don't you even fucking dare. Your smartass snark is unwelcome at the best of times, but to flaunt it here, in the wake of the mass murder of children, borders on unforgivable.

27 lives are gone, people. Most of them children. How about we respect that now and save the gun control debate and miscellaneous partisan vomit for a time when the bodies aren't still warm?


Title: Re: The Good Post Gallery
Post by: Lief 🐋 on December 14, 2012, 03:51:15 pm
cool righteous indignation bros


Title: Re: The Good Post Gallery
Post by: Paul Kemp on December 14, 2012, 03:55:35 pm
But how many times must this happen? How many times must innocents die until we wake up and say "enough is enough"! People say it's disrespectful to make this political so soon, and really what they mean is that it's bad business to talk about gun control, ever. What's disrespectful is never looking at the issue in the face and deciding to do something for once. America needs to talk gun control. Now. Not tomorrow. Not next year. Now.

No, nothing will come of this.  The sooner you accept that, and await the next murderous rampage, the easier it'll be.  Trust me.


Title: Re: The Good Post Gallery
Post by: Landslide Lyndon on December 15, 2012, 05:32:16 am
cool righteous indignation bros

The more I see which posters reacted like that to my post, the better I feel about it.


Title: Re: The Good Post Gallery
Post by: HagridOfTheDeep on December 15, 2012, 01:16:51 pm
Mr Lief, there is an inksing huge difference between "contrary opinions" and this kind of bullinks:
It's a good thing this country prioritizes low taxes and the rights of paranoid rednecks over mental healthcare and gun control.

Is there? Most opinions on this site that are contrary to my own seem like bullinks to me, but you don't see me making a whiny thread about, complaining that I'm a persecuted victim, and then running away like a baby.

I'll admit, you're right on this one. Instead, we get to see you deride and call for the figurative crucifixion of anyone who disagrees with you. It's much better, see.

I think Lief's a good guy, but I do get the impression that election season kinda threw him out of whack.


Title: Re: The Good Post Gallery
Post by: Lief 🐋 on December 15, 2012, 02:06:16 pm
Mr Lief, there is an inksing huge difference between "contrary opinions" and this kind of bullinks:
It's a good thing this country prioritizes low taxes and the rights of paranoid rednecks over mental healthcare and gun control.

Is there? Most opinions on this site that are contrary to my own seem like bullinks to me, but you don't see me making a whiny thread about, complaining that I'm a persecuted victim, and then running away like a baby.

I'll admit, you're right on this one. Instead, we get to see you deride and call for the figurative crucifixion of anyone who disagrees with you. It's much better, see.

Who do I deride and figuratively crucify? Is he still mad because I suggested that Oldiesfreak was a bigot because he called Janet Napolitano and Tammy Baldwin "space bikers"?

If someone is using homophobic or racist language, I'm going to call them out on it. If I use that sort of language, I'd hope people do the same.


Title: Re: The Good Post Gallery
Post by: SUSAN CRUSHBONE on December 15, 2012, 02:26:48 pm
If you knew anything about Oldiesfreak, Mr Lief, you would know that that is entirely plausible.


Title: Re: The Good Post Gallery
Post by: Snowstalker's Last Stand on December 15, 2012, 06:35:31 pm
Brilliant input from the true brains of the forum:


 The rogue mind in which the gun rest denies life again, its horror imagined lived infinity by the survivors of Adam Lanza; his capital sin, revenge - the Obama Christmas Present’.  The Obama Christmas Future’ - the denial and abuse of the Founding Father’s fundamentals can only foster greater atrocities. Their foresight was not void of mass murder, it’s forming was of it. Our Christmas Pass’, Obamacare - the aggrandizement of life, liberty and loot is met with equal distain.


Title: Re: The Good Post Gallery
Post by: Snowguy716 on December 15, 2012, 07:45:28 pm
Nothing of this makes discrimination and bullying against fat people OK. Also, not everybody "chooses" to be fat.

You're exactly right.  Some people choose to be skinny.


Title: Re: The Good Post Gallery
Post by: Gustaf on December 15, 2012, 09:25:19 pm
Mr Lief, there is an inksing huge difference between "contrary opinions" and this kind of bullinks:
It's a good thing this country prioritizes low taxes and the rights of paranoid rednecks over mental healthcare and gun control.

Is there? Most opinions on this site that are contrary to my own seem like bullinks to me, but you don't see me making a whiny thread about, complaining that I'm a persecuted victim, and then running away like a baby.

I'll admit, you're right on this one. Instead, we get to see you deride and call for the figurative crucifixion of anyone who disagrees with you. It's much better, see.

Who do I deride and figuratively crucify? Is he still mad because I suggested that Oldiesfreak was a bigot because he called Janet Napolitano and Tammy Baldwin "space bikers"?

If someone is using homophobic or racist language, I'm going to call them out on it. If I use that sort of language, I'd hope people do the same.

You didn't seem to like it that much when you were called out on wishing the death of Jews. Good thing you didn't make a whiny thread about that, at least. If you had you might look like a hypocrite now.


Title: Re: The Good Post Gallery
Post by: Lief 🐋 on December 15, 2012, 09:33:08 pm
You didn't seem to like it that much when you were called out on wishing the death of Jews.

Ah, there's Mr. Strawman, barging into the thread right on cue.


Title: Re: The Good Post Gallery
Post by: Vosem on December 15, 2012, 10:53:25 pm
You didn't seem to like it that much when you were called out on wishing the death of Jews.

Ah, there's Mr. Strawman, barging into the thread right on cue.

http://www.lostateminor.com/2010/04/20/glass-house-with-glass-furniture/


Title: Re: The Good Post Gallery
Post by: Landslide Lyndon on December 16, 2012, 04:50:50 am
I also don't know where people are getting the idea Brown would be a shoo-in for Senate from as well, what are the odds the Democrats will nominate someone as godawful as Coakley again?

It's not the Democratic candidate, it's the Republican candidate...the logic goes like this: before Elizabeth Warren declared her run against him, Scott Brown was basically safe. Warren won't be running against him. Therefore, while he certainly took a hit from the 2012 campaign, his approval rating remains positive and he is better-known than any potential opponent and, considering the sort of voters with a propensity to turn out in special elections like this, the electorate will be more favorable: therefore, he is slightly favored. Also, while you mention Coakley, ironically Coakley herself and Deval Patrick, the two most popular statewide officials in MA today, are probably the two strongest Democratic candidates. Alas, Capuano is probably the likeliest candidate. Coakley is never running for the Senate again and Patrick doesn't want it.

The argument against this is obvious (Massachusetts is so Democratic none of this matters!), but we'll basically have to wait for polling, probably from PPP, to see if that's really the case. (I actually recall back in January of 2010 the first polling company to show Brown in the lead was PPP, 44-43. Correct me if I am wrong...ah, those were interesting times, politically speaking.)

Given what happened, I don't think Brown could have beaten anyone in 2012. That said, a lot of the problem he had then will be worse now.

Coakley was the worst candidate Democrats could have run for reasons that had zero to do with her personal ineptitude as a candidate. The dominate feature in Massachusetts politics from 2004 onwards were the internal divisions opened up by the Gay Marriage issue. On one hand it swamped Romney, but less noticed is its effect on the state Democratic party. It brought in a wave of new activists, and probably made possible Deval Patrick's entry into the 2006 governor's race. While almost all Democrats supported it by 2007, there was a lot of resentment at the takeover of the party by activists, and Coakley, who was a protege of Reilly, was a big part of that.

Patrick made the situation worse by all but ignoring if not insulting traditional democratic players, even bringing up busing at his first St. Patrick's day Dinner. This culminated in the 2008 Presidential Primary, where the Coakley-Cahill wing backed Clinton, and Patrick backed Obama. Of course, Kerry/Kennedy treacherously backstabbed the Clintons, or at least that was the view of a lot of Democrats. The truth is, there wasn't much good feeling towards Kennedy in the final 18 months of his life in a lot of Democratic circles, and if anything, his high-handed endorsment actually backfired, leading to Clinton's 18 point romp.

Coakley was a die-hard Clintonite bordering on a Puma, voting for Hillary and then insisting on abstaining at the DNC. She entered the race for Senate as much to prevent a Patrick(and by extension Obama-aligned candidate) from taking the seat and to partially get vengeance on Kerry and the Kennedy's. It was a bizarre campaign, but one where she ran hard.

Of course she stopped campaigning altogether after the primary, because that was the campaign she cared about. She then planned to head to Washington where she would be a conservative for Massachusetts senator dedicated to making life hell for Kerry and Obama. Of course that didn't happen. Voters who felt the same way she did suddenly turned on their TVs over Christmas and saw a better version of what she was offering.

Coakley, when she got in trouble in early January, was therefore in the worst position imaginable to reactivate the Democratic coalition. She had based her primary appeal on being at least partially a vote against Obama, and the urban/yuppie/activist/minority domination of the party, and she suddenly needed general election turnout among all of those groups. And she was far too proud to ask for help.

None of those divisions exist anymore. The 2008 elections are years in the past. Brown will not fly under the radar. He will have to take positions on taxes, the debt limit(when it explodes again in March) and the Supreme court, and you can bet his Scalia statement from the debates would be everywhere.


Title: Re: The Good Post Gallery
Post by: Paul Kemp on December 16, 2012, 05:58:44 pm
My own mother can't even get social security disability, and she is confined either to a bed, an arm chair, or a wheel chair... has use of one arm and almost no use of her legs.  But she has been told she does not qualify as apparently she's not "disabled enough".

The PCA that has worked for her for 7 years has a husband that gets $1200/month because he has a bad back and he works full time seal-coating driveways getting paid under the table so he can continue to get benefits.

You'd better be damned sure your psychological problems interfere with your life to the point that gainful employment is impossible... because from what it sounds like, your family has the resources to support you and help you get the help you need to lead a normal life.

My family has all the moral/emotional/sympathetic support in the world for my mom... but we have no money.  And before the conservatives jump in with "SEE THE SYSTEM IS BROKEN SO WE SHOULD DISMANTLE IT"... every time the GOP starts hacking at budgets with a crow bar, my mom gets kicked off of medicaid and has to go through the process of reapplying.  In the meantime, the lack of PCAs is a major financial drain on the family, who must care for her, and ultimately she ends up in the emergency room 1-2 times/month because she can't get her medications.

The fraud and gaming of the system is totally worth it if you'd quit f**king my mom over.  Thank you :)


Title: Re: The Good Post Gallery
Post by: A Strange Reflection on December 17, 2012, 04:28:07 am
Also there's no need to be so condescending.
Well, maybe but you need to understand that it is very provocative when you talk about prostitution in terms of "not all jobs are fun" etc. Whatever you write about prostitution please remember that selling your body is a fundamentally different thing from selling your labour. Using that comparison is both disrespectful and absurd.  

I will admit that you can find several studies that disagree with the majority view.

One important thing to consider when evaluating studies of prostitution is that the worst psychological problems with prostitution are not related to shame, stigma etc. but to the simple fact that a prostitute has to have sex with someone he or she doesn't want to have sex with. In order to cope with this you need to disconnect your mind from your body and it is this process that in the long run is very harmfull and dangerous. Since we are talking about long term injuries it is not necessarily relevant how the women (and men) currently working in the sex industry are doing, since they may not yet have been damaged enough to have the problems.
Remember that psychological damages can potentially occur decades after the actual event.
(think war veterans, victims of violent crime etc.).

Another problem is that many prostitutes are former victims of sexual abuse and they have already had to build up the defence mechanisms I was talking about in my last post in their childhood making the consequences of having to prolong this process in adult life even more problematic.

Prostitution is a complex issue. It can never be fully eradicated and I am not necessarily against legalization (for people over 21, you are generally not mature enough to make that choice earlier) under all circumstances since it might be the least bad option.
If I were to support legalization it should be combined with an active effort to discourage young people from entering into prostitution and attractive exit offers to the ones already in the trade offering an alternative (including rehab programs for drug addicts) + a strict control with the industry including a license to buy prostitutes given only to people without a police record of being charged or convicted of violent and/or sex related crime.
This is hardly realistic in a US context, where the authorities are not exactly known to be generous regarding social work and it would obviously create a black market for unlicensed, prostitution and underage, but at least make it safer for the regulated trade. The penalties for customers enganging in illegal prostitution should be very harsh in this scenario (comparable to rape).
 
What made me angry was therefore not your support for legalization, but this callous comparison of menial work and prostitution and the general carefree attitude in your post.


Title: Re: The Good Post Gallery
Post by: Tetro Kornbluth on December 17, 2012, 10:01:11 am
Yeah, there have certainly been cases in which the godawful state of mental health 'treatment' in the U.S has clearly contributed to a massacre (I dimly recall that being the case in the VA Tech thing anyway; though I might be remembering wrongly), but that's about as far as you can go. Most of the rest of the time we are generally talking of after the fact diagnoses, and often of the 'well, you'd have to be mentally ill to do a thing like this' variety. Which is about as useful as a chocolate blast furnace.

In any case, most people (and by 'most' I mean 'in excess of 99 per cent') people with mental health problems are no more dangerous than the rest of society. That includes the minority of cases that are things more obviously 'scary' than depression and the like. I don't see how increasing the stigma - something that is utterly ludicrious given how common mental health problems are - helps anyone. It certainly wouldn't help to prevent these regular little massacres; the violent punctuation marks of contemporary American society.


Title: Re: The Good Post Gallery
Post by: HokeyDood on December 17, 2012, 02:20:59 pm
I generally go to xvideos or xnxx or xhamster.



Title: Re: The Good Post Gallery
Post by: Saturday's Cab Ride Home on December 17, 2012, 02:35:30 pm
xhamster is great.


Title: Re: The Good Post Gallery
Post by: opebo on December 17, 2012, 02:54:18 pm
xhamster is great.

Yeah seems to be the best one, but was blocked here in Thailand for years.. however sometimes it is unblocked for a few days, for whatever reason.. like today and yesterday.


Title: Re: The Good Post Gallery
Post by: HokeyDood on December 17, 2012, 03:05:14 pm
xhamster is great.

Yeah seems to be the best one, but was blocked here in Thailand for years.. however sometimes it is unblocked for a few days, for whatever reason.. like today and yesterday.

opebo?  You would subject yourself to the laws of a society that would find it necessary block xhamster?  I would guess the availability of cheap Thai hookers would eliminate the need for porn to a degree, though.   


Title: Re: The Good Post Gallery
Post by: opebo on December 17, 2012, 03:08:32 pm
opebo?  You would subject yourself to the laws of a society that would find it necessary block xhamster?  I would guess the availability of cheap Thai hookers would eliminate the need for porn to a degree, though.   

Yeah, of course.  Not just cheap but much more appealing than back home.


Title: Re: The Good Post Gallery
Post by: HokeyDood on December 17, 2012, 03:17:01 pm
opebo?  You would subject yourself to the laws of a society that would find it necessary block xhamster?  I would guess the availability of cheap Thai hookers would eliminate the need for porn to a degree, though.    

Yeah, of course.  Not just cheap but much more appealing than back home.

(http://www.bunnyranch.com/phpAlbum/main.php?cmd=image&var1=Cami-Barbie+Girl+and+Jenny-on-Bill-Cunningham+set-+Airs+Sept.+19th.jpg&var2=490_90)

More appealing than the Bunny Ranch girls?  To each his own, I assume. I certainly have a thing for Asians, though.  Must absolutely take a trip to the Eastern half of the globe.  

How much would one this good-looking run me?

(http://heartbrokedaily.files.wordpress.com/2008/09/picture-4.png)


Title: Re: The Good Post Gallery
Post by: Saturday's Cab Ride Home on December 18, 2012, 11:24:16 am
It's always funny to see presumed left-wingers suddenly argue that people working in degrading jobs where they get exploited is a great thing. I guess that mostly just applies as long as the people doing the work are coloured women rather than white middle-class males.

It gets extra funny when Lief himself compares it to working in coal mines.

See Gustaf, this is the problem with you.

I find Lief's arguments to be completely wrong, misguided and somewhat silly. But there's nothing in what he posted that in any way suggests he's a misogynist or a racist. You're just bringing out strawmen instead of actually addressing his points (which you don't need to, since Politicus did that excellently).

That's what I said when I mentioned your "disturbing tendency to judge people very early and to argue against strawmen instead of against them". At least get aware of this.


Title: Re: The Good Post Gallery
Post by: opebo on December 18, 2012, 12:53:08 pm
The problem is that a security guard who is effective in the rare situation where he is needed, but is not a pompous nuisance, a detriment to your business, and frankly a minor danger to customers is very hard to find and deserves a much higher salary than he is going to get.


Title: Re: The Good Post Gallery
Post by: Saturday's Cab Ride Home on December 21, 2012, 12:17:04 pm
Eh well I missed that part. The rest though was a good rebuttal to Gustaf's constant pearl-clutching in that thread. Antonio's doing a great job of owning him otherwise.


Title: Re: The Good Post Gallery
Post by: Gustaf on December 21, 2012, 01:34:37 pm
Eh well I missed that part. The rest though was a good rebuttal to Gustaf's constant pearl-clutching in that thread. Antonio's doing a great job of owning him otherwise.

Eh...do you realize that that post was not directed at me nor did it rebut anything I said in the thread? Also, Antonio is mostly agreeing with me in that thread (as is Ingemann, actually).

For a devout Christian at Christmas time you seem very blinded by your hatred, dearest.


Title: Re: The Good Post Gallery
Post by: Averroës on December 21, 2012, 01:57:40 pm
I don't remember anyone ever sharing this post here. White Cloud's follow-up posts are also well worth your time:

I thought I would resurrect this old thread to give a complete answer to your question, A Tree For Trials.

Ellis County, Kansas was settled mostly by Germans from Russia, Volga Germans as they are called. These were German-speaking people who had settled in the Volga River region of Russia in the 1700s, seeking political, economic, and religious freedom. They started migrating to Ellis County, Kansas in the 1870s, homesteading land along the Union Pacific railroad. This particular group of Volga Germans were Catholic. They settled Ellis County throughout the 1870s and 1880s, establishing communities such as Victoria (which was called Herzog back then), Pfeifer, Liebenthal, Schoenchen, Munjor, Antonino, Catharine, and Emmeram. Most of these towns still exist. The Catholic cathedrals that they built in Victoria and Pfeifer are major tourist attractions today.

I don't know when they started voting Democratic, but it goes back at least to the 1884 presidential election, when Ellis County was the only county in Kansas won by Grover Cleveland.

Link: http://cstl-cla.semo.edu/renka/ui320-75/renka_papers/party_system_maps.asp

They were big supporters of William Jennings Bryan (who won Kansas in 1896) and the Populist candidate James B. Weaver (who won Kansas in 1892, running as both the Democratic and Populist nominee in Kansas).

They were strongly opposed to prohibition. Beer drinking was a big part of their German culture. Republicans in Kansas at the time were very in favor of prohibition, almost to the point of zealotry (Carry Nation smashing up bars with a hatchet). Republican support of prohibition probably pushed Ellis County's Volga Germans even more into the Democratic column.

In 1928, Al Smith, who was the first Catholic major party nominee for President, won Ellis County. This was an election in which Hoover got 72% of the Kansas vote, largely because Hoover's vice presidential nominee was Charles Curtis, who was a respected Kansas Senator. The 1928 county map is just astonishing because the whole state of Kansas is 70-80% for Hoover, then there is this lone Democratic county in western Kansas that is as strongly for Al Smith as the surrounding counties are for Hoover. Ellis County was truly an enclave.

1928 County Results Map:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/1/1e/1928prescountymap.PNG

Al Smith being Catholic had a lot to do with it. This was also during prohibition and Smith opposed prohibition. But like I said, Ellis County had started voting Democratic long before this.

Ellis County supported FDR strongly in 1932 and 1936, but voted Republican in 1940 and 1944 because they didn't support the war effort against Germany. They voted for Truman in 1948, but then voted for Eisenhower in 1952 and 1956. Eisenhower was from Kansas and had German ancestry.

In 1960, Ellis County was one of only two Kansas counties won by John F. Kennedy. Kennedy actually made a campaign stop in Hays, the county seat of Ellis County, during his 1960 presidential campaign.

In 1964, LBJ got 69% of the vote in Ellis County, his best in Kansas.

It probably started changing around that time. Nixon won there in 1968 and 1972. But Carter won in 1976. Reagan won in 1980 and 1984. But Dukakis won in 1988.

The last time Ellis County voted for a Democratic presidential nominee was Bill Clinton in 1992. Bob Dole, the Republican presidential nominee in 1996, was from Russell, Kansas, just 30 miles east of Hays. Dole won easily.

Sometime in the late 1990s/early 2000s registered Republicans surpassed registered Democrats in Ellis County. That had not happened in a long time.

Even though it has been trending Republican, Ellis County remains one of the most Democratic counties in western Kansas. They will still support Democrats on the state and local level, but not the presidential level. Kathleen Sebelius did very well there when she ran for Governor.

What happened was Ellis County probably became less of an enclave due to in-migration/out-migration, which brought in different people who were not from the Volga German culture. The second factor would be that the Volga German culture there was always conservative even though it was Democratic, so when the Democratic Party became more liberal on social issues it might have left these voters behind.


Title: Re: The Good Post Gallery
Post by: Trounce-'em Theresa on December 25, 2012, 01:52:42 pm
homelycooking says what I tried to say in this same thread, and says it much better:

Multiple assailants?  I promise you this, if multiple assailants come at you, all you need to do is threaten to shoot one and most will back off.  If there are more than 10 then you are f'd (even if you have a weapon with a mag with more than 10 bullets).

Is Rwoy a perfect shot somehow, capable of taking down 10 mobile adult men with 10 bullets, or does he have experience in this manner?

Are private sector citizens supposed to gamble their lives and the lives of their women and children on this theory?

"Their women and children"? You refer to them as one would a piece of land or a house - as chattel.

"Ten mobile adult men"? The image you conjure up is one of urban gang violence - one we unconsciously but inevitably associate with black, hypersexualized, undisciplined, acutely menacing bodies.

And then you refer to "private sector citizens": defined, by your own syntactic implications, as the rational, disciplined antithesis and counterpart to these two groups. Gun ownership is important here: it represents the efficient, calculated use of deadly force against savagery as well as the political "organ" of American frontier masculinity.

You've managed to neatly distill centuries of bigotry into two sentences. As Americans, we're all burdened with these racist and sexist fantasies, but that doesn't mean that it's all right to give them credence in an argument as you have.

Merry Christmas :)


Title: Re: The Good Post Gallery
Post by: Lief 🐋 on December 26, 2012, 11:06:36 am
Porn is a horrible curse and so are functioning libidos.

Haha, it is testimony to the prudishness of this forum that one cannot be certain you are joking here.


Title: Re: The Good Post Gallery
Post by: Trounce-'em Theresa on December 26, 2012, 11:08:33 am
Both of those nested posts are good, according to taste. Both are also Deluge-worthy, according to taste.


Title: Re: The Good Post Gallery
Post by: Goldwater on December 27, 2012, 01:20:07 pm
An entity has no soul. It is merely a product of the people in it. Therefore, it would stand to reason that regardless of the stance the Democrats took 150 years ago is irrelevant. One can as well easily observe the direction the Democrats took in transforming from a party of agrarians, Catholics, and Southerners, to a party of Northern liberals. Ironically, it would be a Catholic who assisted in this transformation. No conservative should believe in collective sin. That's for the affirmative action folks. Fact is, all the supporters of slavery are long, long dead. Many segregationists are dead or out of office.


Title: Re: The Good Post Gallery
Post by: Saturday's Cab Ride Home on December 28, 2012, 11:03:52 am
From a rather surprising source...

Oldies, there are a plethora of reasons the Republican Party is today more worthy of your vote than the Democratic Party.

Not only is 'the Democrats supported slavery in the 1860s' not one of them, that's actually really stupid. Because organizations that have been around for centuries change with the times.

The example that you are Christian but disapprove of the Crusades was brought up. You answered that that's OK, because Christ would have disapproved of the Crusades too.

Lincoln wanted to deport black people to Central America. However, this is not a valid reason to oppose the Republican Party today. Why? Because everybody who was part of the organization back then is dead. Therefore, they no longer matter. You have to judge an organization by what it does now, or what it's done in the comparatively recent past (within the memberships of the majority of it's current members is how I would define this) to decide whether you approve or disapprove of it. The 1860s can't decide your vote in 2012.


Title: Re: The Good Post Gallery
Post by: HagridOfTheDeep on December 28, 2012, 01:31:53 pm
Excuse me... I said ATTEMPTED.

What has that to do with the price of rice?

Quote
How many religious leaders/strict fundamentalists who are following their scriptures to a T can you think of that would not relish the idea of controlling their adherents like puppets?  We can only be grateful that the vast majority of people who claim to be religious take the particularly nasty bits as metaphor/push them aside (stoning your neighbor for working on the Sabbath, for example).   I understand religion is supposed to be one's way of connecting with God, but what is the end result of it all?  Control... and it's not control coming from another person... it's control coming from God itself, here AND in the afterlife, it's eternal.

Somewhat inevitably it appears that you don't know the first thing about the target of your juvenile ravings. Religion is far too complex a thing (if it is even really a single thing) to be dismissed as merely a form of 'social control'. The same rites and institutions that may be profoundly oppressive to one person may well be profoundly liberating to another. And that's just scratching the surface.

Quote
Once again proving the point of this thread... around the Atlas it's OFFENSIVE to have a negative opinion of religion.

I don't think that's true, but it is certainly true that I found your particular post to be quite offensive. I believe that I have a right to find offensive what offends me; I think we all do, actually. No one has a right to have their opinions accepted without question, without criticism.

Quote
Sorry, but I'm not going to moderate myself on an institution I consider to be inherently the worst kind of evil.

Leaving aside first the irony and second the idea that 'religion' can be thought of as a single 'institution', it strikes me as a little strange to view (say) a rosary as more evil than (say) Treblinka.


Title: Re: The Good Post Gallery
Post by: We Have A Pope on December 28, 2012, 04:04:35 pm
And why the removal of right to work?

Because it has been consistently shown to lead to lower wages everywhere it is passed.

But it offers people the choice not to join a union.  If they so choose to do so, why should they not be allowed to do so?

Because it creates a situation where someone can benefit from agreements like better wages and benefits that were obtained through collective bargaining, while not having to pay the costs (such as union dues) that were necessary to obtain such agreements. This sets up a version of the prisoner's dilemma (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prisoner's_dilemma) where the best scenario for the group would be to cooperate (maintaining the union and keeping higher wages and benefits), but the best scenario for each individual is for them to not cooperate and the others to cooperate (meaning they get higher wages but don't have the costs associated with being in a union) and the worst scenario for each individual would be to cooperate while others don't (leading to them having to pay union costs but have wages go down anyway). This creates an incentive for all workers to avoid cooperation, which leads to the second-worst possible outcome for each individual and the worst possible outcome for the group as a whole.

Not to mention that people can be legally required to do many things as part of the contract they sign for a job. They can be required to undergo drug tests (in most states), wear certain clothes, work certain hours, etc. If that is legal, then why shouldn't requiring someone to join a union as part of their contract be?

This seems like a conservative position, to allow for maximum freedom of contract. Right-to-work is the government outlawing a specific type of contract freely entered into by two private-sector individuals or organizations. That seems like a pretty strange thing for a free-market, laissez-faire person to support. It's a big government, not small government, type of law.

From a more leftist perspective, I don't think that most contracts are really "freely" entered into given socioeconomic pressures on most workers to find a job, and so I support government intervention to level the imbalance of power between employer and employee. Right-to-work legislation doesn't do anything to relieve that imbalance though, in fact it does the opposite, so I don't support it. Supporting right-to-work isn't a conservative position, but it's not a liberal/leftist one either. It's a big government corporatist position, an example of using the power of the government to intervene in private matters in support of business.


Title: Re: The Good Post Gallery
Post by: Simfan34 on December 28, 2012, 04:14:57 pm

Al is horrible, until you agree with him.


Title: Re: The Good Post Gallery
Post by: Lief 🐋 on December 28, 2012, 05:44:30 pm
but people should have a bit more compassion.

Yes, Thatcher's lack of compassion was an awful thing. Led directly to the wrecking of countless lives.


Title: Re: The Good Post Gallery
Post by: Marokai Backbeat on December 28, 2012, 09:42:22 pm
The average American family has a mother and a father, and two children. They are white and consider themselves "Christian", but attend church only a few times a year. One of the spouses votes, the other does not, though neither follow the news particularly closely. The husband works, probably in a call center or some other office job where he's selling products bought with debt or nagging people to pay up on the debt they've used to buy things. The couple owns a house worth about $200,000, but the family owes most of that money to the bank. While they stay up to date on their mortgage payments, they know plenty of people who are unable to. The wife may have a part-time job, but is probably unemployed. Their yearly income is about $45,000. The family receives health insurance through the husband's job and is generally satisfied with it, though the co-pays and premiums are very expensive and if any family member suddenly got very sick or badly injured, they would quickly realize their insurance plan is wholly inadequate. The family has a few thousand dollars in the bank, but owes about as much in credit card debt (they receive a phone call at least once a week from a credit card company trying to get them to pay up; they allow this call to go to the answering machine). They have no money saved for retirement, nor do they have any investments (stocks, bonds, etc.), nor do they have any money saved to pay for their children's college education. They go on a "vacation" once a year, which involves a short drive to the beach or staying with family for a few days during Christmas or Thanksgiving.


Title: Re: The Good Post Gallery
Post by: opebo on December 29, 2012, 10:55:21 am
Current DUI/DWI penalties are fine.

you support coerced 12-step participation for non-addicts and non-alcoholics?
Coerced therapy is useless to its nominal aims and not really any sort of therapy at all, but it feeds a lot of people (and feeds them well) out of the public purse without officially swelling the ranks of government employees. Besides, it's cheaper than jailing middle class offenders and preserves their respectability. From the point of view of bourgeois democracy, it's a win-win-win-win.


Title: Re: The Good Post Gallery
Post by: Bacon! 🔥 on December 31, 2012, 02:33:10 am
I seriously believe Congress should be paid the medium income of Americans.
How about they start paying us, oh wait, they already do!

You're telling me we're paid by Congress? By what? Their own munificent generosity and benevolent charity? You're joking, right? Now, I'm not much of a democrat and certainly no republican, but at least in this country, these people on the hill are beholden to the people. We could fire them all if we wanted to, and if people in this country had half a brain, they would.

I'm not going to deny that the GOP is to blame here. The amount they've been willing to ignore their beliefs, constituents, and past positions all to spite the President is just disgusting. I really don't know who the Republicans are beholden to. The rich are liberals. The neoconservatives and neoliberals are supportive of the President. It seems they're led by no ones and nobody- Norquist, Limbaugh, Santorum. Who are these people? Why are they leading the party? They're nobodies! These small minded morons aren't conservative, they aren't even reactionary, they're just dumb. The GOP today isn't being led by far right wingnuts, they're being led by just- wingnuts.


Title: Re: The Good Post Gallery
Post by: minionofmidas - supplemental forum account on January 01, 2013, 07:40:38 am
The middle class gets the CTC while the poor gets TANF.  What is so hard to understand about why TANF is controversial?  After all when it comes to government spending, the word wasteful means, "I don't get any of it myself."


Title: Re: The Good Post Gallery
Post by: oreomilkshake on January 01, 2013, 08:53:51 pm
The middle class gets the CTC while the poor gets TANF.  What is so hard to understand about why TANF is controversial?  After all when it comes to government spending, the word wasteful means, "I don't get any of it myself."


Title: Re: The Good Post Gallery
Post by: Oldiesfreak1854 on January 01, 2013, 08:56:32 pm
An entity has no soul. It is merely a product of the people in it. Therefore, it would stand to reason that regardless of the stance the Democrats took 150 years ago is irrelevant. One can as well easily observe the direction the Democrats took in transforming from a party of agrarians, Catholics, and Southerners, to a party of Northern liberals. Ironically, it would be a Catholic who assisted in this transformation. No conservative should believe in collective sin. That's for the affirmative action folks. Fact is, all the supporters of slavery are long, long dead. Many segregationists are dead or out of office.
Yeah, but it still matters.  Would you want to support Dems because of that, no matter how long ago it was?


Title: Re: The Good Post Gallery
Post by: Vazdul (Formerly Chairman of the Communist Party of Ontario) on January 01, 2013, 09:07:26 pm
An entity has no soul. It is merely a product of the people in it. Therefore, it would stand to reason that regardless of the stance the Democrats took 150 years ago is irrelevant. One can as well easily observe the direction the Democrats took in transforming from a party of agrarians, Catholics, and Southerners, to a party of Northern liberals. Ironically, it would be a Catholic who assisted in this transformation. No conservative should believe in collective sin. That's for the affirmative action folks. Fact is, all the supporters of slavery are long, long dead. Many segregationists are dead or out of office.
Yeah, but it still matters.  Would you want to support Dems because of that, no matter how long ago it was?

You're missing the point. People who support Democrats don't support them because of what happened 150 years ago. Most people who oppose Democrats don't oppose them for what happened 150 years ago. They either support or oppose the Democrats because of their positions today. Whereas we look at the present, you dwell on the past. You would oppose a perfectly good candidate with whom you agree on the issues, is qualified for the position, etc., because he or she associates with the same political party as people who did bad things a century and a half ago, despite the fact that this candidate has no relation to any of those bad people other than the D next to their name.


Title: Re: The Good Post Gallery
Post by: Oldiesfreak1854 on January 02, 2013, 10:45:20 am
An entity has no soul. It is merely a product of the people in it. Therefore, it would stand to reason that regardless of the stance the Democrats took 150 years ago is irrelevant. One can as well easily observe the direction the Democrats took in transforming from a party of agrarians, Catholics, and Southerners, to a party of Northern liberals. Ironically, it would be a Catholic who assisted in this transformation. No conservative should believe in collective sin. That's for the affirmative action folks. Fact is, all the supporters of slavery are long, long dead. Many segregationists are dead or out of office.
Yeah, but it still matters.  Would you want to support Dems because of that, no matter how long ago it was?

You're missing the point. People who support Democrats don't support them because of what happened 150 years ago. Most people who oppose Democrats don't oppose them for what happened 150 years ago. They either support or oppose the Democrats because of their positions today. Whereas we look at the present, you dwell on the past. You would oppose a perfectly good candidate with whom you agree on the issues, is qualified for the position, etc., because he or she associates with the same political party as people who did bad things a century and a half ago, despite the fact that this candidate has no relation to any of those bad people other than the D next to their name.
I oppose Democrats both because of their history of racism and ther far-left policies today.  If I thought there was  a Dem running for office that was better than the GOP candidate, then I would vote for him/her (e.g. LeRoy Collins 1968, Edwin Edwards 1991).  But Bill Fitzgerald in 1978 (against Milliken) does not fit that bill for me, at least for now.


Title: Re: The Good Post Gallery
Post by: Vazdul (Formerly Chairman of the Communist Party of Ontario) on January 02, 2013, 11:49:09 am
An entity has no soul. It is merely a product of the people in it. Therefore, it would stand to reason that regardless of the stance the Democrats took 150 years ago is irrelevant. One can as well easily observe the direction the Democrats took in transforming from a party of agrarians, Catholics, and Southerners, to a party of Northern liberals. Ironically, it would be a Catholic who assisted in this transformation. No conservative should believe in collective sin. That's for the affirmative action folks. Fact is, all the supporters of slavery are long, long dead. Many segregationists are dead or out of office.
Yeah, but it still matters.  Would you want to support Dems because of that, no matter how long ago it was?

You're missing the point. People who support Democrats don't support them because of what happened 150 years ago. Most people who oppose Democrats don't oppose them for what happened 150 years ago. They either support or oppose the Democrats because of their positions today. Whereas we look at the present, you dwell on the past. You would oppose a perfectly good candidate with whom you agree on the issues, is qualified for the position, etc., because he or she associates with the same political party as people who did bad things a century and a half ago, despite the fact that this candidate has no relation to any of those bad people other than the D next to their name.
I oppose Democrats both because of their history of racism and ther far-left policies today.  If I thought there was  a Dem running for office that was better than the GOP candidate, then I would vote for him/her (e.g. LeRoy Collins 1968, Edwin Edwards 1991).  But Bill Fitzgerald in 1978 (against Milliken) does not fit that bill for me, at least for now.

I can respect the bolded part. But your decision making still factors in the Democrats' history of racism, even when the candidate in question, and most current members of the party at large, have no such history. If there was a race you'd rate the Democrat with a slight edge over the Republican in terms of ideology and qualifications, you might still vote for the Republican because of things the Democratic party did 150 years ago that the Democrat in this race had no part in, and would have opposed if he/she were living during that time. You shouldn't take such things into account- you should analyze the candidates and vote for the one you think is best regardless of party affiliation.


Title: Re: The Good Post Gallery
Post by: Northeast Rep Snowball on January 02, 2013, 12:38:21 pm
An entity has no soul. It is merely a product of the people in it. Therefore, it would stand to reason that regardless of the stance the Democrats took 150 years ago is irrelevant. One can as well easily observe the direction the Democrats took in transforming from a party of agrarians, Catholics, and Southerners, to a party of Northern liberals. Ironically, it would be a Catholic who assisted in this transformation. No conservative should believe in collective sin. That's for the affirmative action folks. Fact is, all the supporters of slavery are long, long dead. Many segregationists are dead or out of office.
Yeah, but it still matters.  Would you want to support Dems because of that, no matter how long ago it was?

You're missing the point. People who support Democrats don't support them because of what happened 150 years ago. Most people who oppose Democrats don't oppose them for what happened 150 years ago. They either support or oppose the Democrats because of their positions today. Whereas we look at the present, you dwell on the past. You would oppose a perfectly good candidate with whom you agree on the issues, is qualified for the position, etc., because he or she associates with the same political party as people who did bad things a century and a half ago, despite the fact that this candidate has no relation to any of those bad people other than the D next to their name.
I oppose Democrats both because of their history of racism and ther far-left policies today.  If I thought there was  a Dem running for office that was better than the GOP candidate, then I would vote for him/her (e.g. LeRoy Collins 1968, Edwin Edwards 1991).  But Bill Fitzgerald in 1978 (against Milliken) does not fit that bill for me, at least for now.

I can respect the bolded part. But your decision making still factors in the Democrats' history of racism, even when the candidate in question, and most current members of the party at large, have no such history. If there was a race you'd rate the Democrat with a slight edge over the Republican in terms of ideology and qualifications, you might still vote for the Republican because of things the Democratic party did 150 years ago that the Democrat in this race had no part in, and would have opposed if he/she were living during that time. You shouldn't take such things into account- you should analyze the candidates and vote for the one you think is best regardless of party affiliation.


Title: Re: The Good Post Gallery
Post by: minionofmidas - supplemental forum account on January 02, 2013, 12:50:25 pm
No arguing in the Good Post Gallery. Take it to the Deluge where this discussion belongs.


Title: Re: The Good Post Gallery
Post by: Mechaman on January 02, 2013, 07:34:34 pm
About damn time somebody brought this up:

Not in the context of his time, at least (which, of course, is really the only way the term "moderate" would theoretically make any sense).

Keep in mind, the entire political "spectrum" was different back then (1960s/early 1970s). Different issues, different people, different historical context. There was a huge organized labor movement/presence in the United States, the civil rights and anti-Vietnam and anti-Cold War movements were big too, as was the New Left. The feminist movement (at least, of the time) was still in its early stages, though, and this was even more the case for the gay rights movement, so issues like abortion and gay marriage weren't really on the majority of American's radar screens.

As for Nixon...while he was a big part of the 50s/60s/70s Republican establishment (obviously), he wasn't known for being a "moderate", and certainly not a "liberal." This is the man, let's be clear, that was often compared by actual liberals and leftists (not the same thing, but that's another discussion...) to Joe McCarthy; who brought down Alger Hiss and smeared the reputation of Helen Douglas with Red (or pink, whichever) accusations; who escalated the war in Vietnam even more than Lyndon Johnson and expanded it to Cambodia; who initiated the draconian "War on Drugs" that continues to this day; and was infamous for his taped White House rants that revealed anti-Semitism, anti-intellectualism, and other forms of bigotry. "Moderate" this man certainly was not.

So in conclusion, please stop calling Nixon a "moderate" or "liberal Republican."

Thanks.



Title: Re: The Good Post Gallery
Post by: Mechaman on January 02, 2013, 11:22:22 pm
I must say, in hindsight, CharimanSanchez owned the Nixon thread.  Though, I do stick by the OP, which pretty much reminded the forum liberals on here about how much of a horrible goddamned human being Richard "Tricky Dick" Babykiller Milhous Nixon really was.

So, killing Cambodians, being anti Semitic, anti-drug, and anti-intellectual is a solely rightwing thing?
Where do I begin?

*Johnson started the war in Vietnam, and while he was not as bad as Nixon, he still holds much of the blame. Johnson was a leftwing President on the modern scale of looking at things, and was certainly at least center-left at the time. You cannot deny that.

*Nixon started the war on drugs, which has been continued by every one of the post Nixon Presidents, liberal and conservative. To be fair, we never really had a very liberal President since Nixon. Obama at best is center-left.

*The nation was generally more leftwing at the time than people remember. Civil Rights, and Labor, as you mentioned, were huge. So Nixon is, as you stated, much more rightwing than the average Democrat or liberal Republican of the time. Compared to the generally mainstream Goldwater-Reagan wing, and the even more extreme Schmitz-Ashbrook-John Bircher wing, he was very moderate. Only barely to the right of Rockefeller.

*Nixon was Lee Atwater before Lee Atwater. He was brutal. No denying it. But do you seriously not believe Lyndon Johnson, the Kennedy clan, and other prominent opponents are just as guilty. It's politics. Of course he smeared his rivals. Everyone does. How does smearing your rivals in a election make you less of a liberal/moderate Republican.

*Just because Nixon was a very bigoted person (ever hear the tape of him speaking about All in the Family with Haldeman?) does not make him any more rightwing. Ever hear of Jesse Jackson? Or is he conservative too?

Nixon was, at the time, and certainly by modern standards, a moderate Republican who would be considered “center right” using simplistic, President Forever 2008 standards. Being a moderate Republican does not automatically make you a great person, as made obvious by Nixon, and as many believe today.



Title: Re: The Good Post Gallery
Post by: Kitteh on January 03, 2013, 12:51:46 am
That entire Nixon thread belongs in here.


Title: Re: The Good Post Gallery
Post by: Oldiesfreak1854 on January 03, 2013, 01:44:22 pm
Nixon did NOT escalate the Vietnam War.


Title: Re: The Good Post Gallery
Post by: Grumpy Santa on January 03, 2013, 03:30:54 pm
On Newt Gingrich

I guess he realized he can't exactly make the argument of the sanctity of marriage.


Title: Re: The Good Post Gallery
Post by: oreomilkshake on January 05, 2013, 07:55:46 pm
It has effectively no factual basis whatsoever.  Basically the entirety of the Taliban's leadership were in Pakistani refugee camps throughout the Soviet War in Afghanistan, where they were taught by a low-ranking vet of the war, Mullah Omar, who lost his eye in the mid-80s and left.  The people that actually were in Afghanistan (Dostum, Massoud, Hekmatyar, Rabbani, etc) were not the roots of the Taliban at all, and their power struggle with each other is what gave the Taliban their opening (with Pakistani financial backing) to win over the people as an alternative to chaos.  Even then, Hekmatyar even tried to ally with Massoud(!) against the Taliban.  None of the senior Mujahideen commanders ever ended up in the Taliban government, and, again, most of the Taliban's senior leadership (excepting Omar) were too young to fight the Soviets in the first place and were kicking their heels in refugee camps.

I keep hearing people trot out this myth that the Mujahideen evolved into the Taliban, and it's not really based in fact at all.

Didn't a large amount of Mujahedeen foot soldiers with combat experience and donated weaponry later join the Taliban though?



Much of Hekmatyar's forces defected to the Taliban after he lost Kabul in 1996, but mostly because by that point Taliban victory was a fait accompli.  The original 1994 Taliban was pretty much all refugees in Pakistan (funded by the Pakistanis after Hekmatyar proved to be a very poor puppet).


Idiocy is bipartisan.

And that includes me, I suppose. Mikado, I will admit I actually believed that theory until just now because of my lack of information on that subject. Thank you for informing me. I assume the Mujaheddin was composed of people like Massoud et al?  

It was more a collection of 70+ different militias without a formal hierarchy who, after the fall of Kabul in 1991, promptly started shooting each other for three years until they lost all credibility and the Taliban swept in.  Massoud was a Tajik, he wouldn't have been able to hold the show together, but Rabbani was the figurehead he was backing.  Massoud/Rabbani vs. Hekmatyar with the (ethnically Mongol, religiously Shia) Hazaras getting shot at by everybody and shooting at everybody.


Title: Re: The Good Post Gallery
Post by: Trounce-'em Theresa on January 06, 2013, 12:14:15 am
Not sure if trolling or serious

I believe it is a false distinction.


Title: Re: The Good Post Gallery
Post by: Lief 🐋 on January 06, 2013, 01:14:17 am
Came here to post that! Great post.


Title: Re: The Good Post Gallery
Post by: patrick1 on January 06, 2013, 01:58:16 am
Great post Gully. The culture of fear in this country is bad.  The guns are supposed to make these people feel safe but the ones with an armory seem to most frightened of all.

Do the people mocking this idea believe that no one should be able to carry a gun onto school grounds? 

Yes. Absolutely.

So this is an argument for pacifism then?  That's a fine view to have, but it's far from obviously the right one.

Why would anyone need a gun (or at least a loaded one. I could accept unloaded ones used for demonstrations, etc) in a school?

If you are so paranoid about mass shooters tearing about kids that you think is the best solution is to arm people, especially teachers then the shooters have already won. You are creating the world they live in. Congratulations.

Perhaps, but I'm not sure the shooters have won anything either way, and I wouldn't call it paranoid when these things actually do happen. 
And when it does, it's understandable that people want to feel that their children are protected. 

Yes. And the best way for this to happen? Stop talking about guns. Stop having guns. Stop dreaming guns. Stop identifying guns as some sort of part of one's identity. Stop with this whole ridiculous macho fantasy about white boy saving the day from Crazed Psycho (TM) by slugging him with perfect aim and precision during what would be probably the most intense seconds of your life. I'm not American, but if I were, I would want protection from gun nuts far more than the likes of Crazed Psycho (no offense to him, I don't know him personally). Why? Because it is the guns discourse which is so poisonous and absurd and has absolutely nothing to do with the prospects of security and everything about the fear and paranoid which seep into every conversation about guns by gun nuts. Want proof? Gun sales going through the roof after Sandy Hook and the threats to take the toys away is proof enough. It is also shows that this nothing, nothing to do with the practical uses of guns, which legislation can always protect, but about perverse masculinity and fear. And neither of those things would make me feel secure [/rant over].


Title: Re: The Good Post Gallery
Post by: SPC on January 06, 2013, 02:56:12 am
Antonio makes some good points in his initial post. One of the truly irritating things I found when I was doing work for Ron Paul in Northeast Iowa was the Founding Fathers fetish of most of his supporters showed. I have no issue with admiring a politician of old, being a strict constructionist of the U.S. Constitution or defending the rights of states as I myself am both a strict constructionist and believer in localism. However, simply invoking John Randolph of Roanoke or the 10th Amendment is hardly a decent argument for or against a policy.

The reason why most constitutionalists and state's rights advocates are annoying to debate with is because many do not feel that they need to justify their policy planks with facts or reason outside of, "The 10th Amendment and Article IV of the Constitution says so." I support a strict interpretation of the Constitution because it limits the power of the feds, not because George Mason and a document supported such things. State's rights should make sense to limited government conservatives because it breaks down the government into fifty squabbling groups as opposed to one, unified oppressive government. The founders did not support this and the fact that they overrode the articles to create a Constitution is proof of that.

The author of this thread really made some great points as have many of the posters in this thread. Constitutionalists should support state's rights because it is what makes sense in terms of their governmental theories not because a document or some dude from the 17th Century said they should. These things can stand as ONE reason for supporting state's rights but NOT the ONLY reason, which happens far too often. The Founding Fathers fetish is another example of intellectual laziness but it is one that can be cured by a hard look at why one really supports certain policies and philosophies of governance.    


Title: Re: The Good Post Gallery
Post by: Vosem on January 06, 2013, 10:59:25 am
It's dominated by tourism. Having visited Moab, I would be surprised if it weren't a pretty Democratic town, but the rest of the county, which consists of rural Mormons, votes basically unanimously Republican, so it evens out with a slight Republican tilt.
This sounds reasonable... but it's actually far more complex.

Moab voting districts, pop. 8677, 2008 vote Obama 1884, McCain 1762.
Remainder of county, pop. pop. 548, 2008 vote Obama 183, McCain 109. That looks like the total opposite of what you claimed... until you look at it in greater detail. There are just three precincts not in and around Moab, and two of them that cover the entire northern 60% of the county have about 100 inhabitants. They indeed vote R, one of them with 80% for McCain. The biggest non-Moab precinct is Castle Valley in the southeast of the county, and that's its most democratic (and no doubt totally touristy) precinct at 65% Obama.
But of the area above described as Moab, only one precinct of eight is wholly within city limits and one is entirely outside. There are two dense central precincts, all the rest extend outward (all the way to the western county line, though no one actually lives out there.) As it happens, the one of the dense central precincts that actually includes a bit of territory outside the city is an outlier at 62% Obama; I suppose this is the area you thought of as the touristy Democratic town. The others come in at 52% (2), 51%, 50% (2 incl. the other central one), and then 46% and 42%. The 46% precinct is actually wholly outside the city and is ribbon development along Route 191, starting on the southern county line, and the 42% is north of it along the route, more than half outside the city by territory. Still these are both actually among the smallest of the six "outer" Moab precincts.
It's a ex-mining-gone-touristy town whose founding, ancestral population happens to be wholly Mormon, and that has limited the D growth compared to what it might have been elsewhere. What you need to understand is not all the hippie leftie voters in other such enclaves are newcomers, the locals get the bug too. Indeed if there weren't a welcoming element to the local culture in the first place, these enclaves wouldn't spring up.

And while I was at it I also looked at San Juan.
As a broad breakup, Blanding precincts (again extending outward) 4307 people, 68% White and 25% Native, 1164 McCain, 254 Obama. (Navajos in offrez border towns tend to vote much more Republican than on the rez if they vote at all, which they don't really tend to do. Same pattern is observable in Farmington, Page, Winslow...)
Monticello and wholly rural offrez precincts, 3820 people, 85% White and just 3% Native, McCain 1052, Obama 292, so actually marginally less lopsided.
Reservation precincts, 6619 people, 92% Native and 5% White, Obama 1776, McCain 370. Now this is a polarized county that evens out to a slight R lean.



Title: Re: The Good Post Gallery
Post by: sjoyce on January 06, 2013, 06:56:09 pm
http://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=167382 (http://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=167382)


Title: Re: The Good Post Gallery
Post by: A Strange Reflection on January 07, 2013, 09:24:10 am
http://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=167382 (http://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=167382)

Disliking Romney States is indeed very good.


Title: Re: The Good Post Gallery
Post by: traininthedistance on January 08, 2013, 12:13:53 pm
I don't understand why people get their knickers in a knot about gentrification by itself.  Gentrification is the market working, it's not possible to stop.  If people are willing to pay more money to buy a house or rent in a neighborhood, how or why stop them?  We're not going to have some utopia where everyone can afford to live wherever they want. 

The debate we should have is about housing codes, zoning, economic opportunity and the environment.  People should realize that the current geography of bad/good neighborhoods is largely the product of failed government policy.  For years government has actively subsidized the suburbs, leading to an inefficient use of urban space and undervalued neighborhoods like those in North, central and South Brooklyn.  The goal ought to be, every neighborhood is livable, with a mix of uses and space for different kinds of people, not the status quo for every particular neighborhood.


Title: Re: The Good Post Gallery
Post by: Snowstalker's Last Stand on January 08, 2013, 12:18:22 pm
http://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=167382 (http://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=167382)

Disliking Romney States is indeed very good.

I obviously dislike their voting habits, but many of them are nice places with nice people. Alaska is probably the most beautiful state in the country, and Texas is big and diverse (California with oil :P).


Title: Re: The Good Post Gallery
Post by: Oldiesfreak1854 on January 08, 2013, 07:46:59 pm
I, too, dislike the voting patterns of most of the Romney states, but simply because they make the GOP look bad (and thus should be blue-leaning states.)


Title: Re: The Good Post Gallery
Post by: Snowstalker's Last Stand on January 08, 2013, 10:18:42 pm
I, too, dislike the voting patterns of most of the Romney states, but simply because they make the GOP look bad (and thus should be blue-leaning states.)

(http://uselectionatlas.org/TOOLS/genusmap.php?year=1948&pv_p=1&ev_p=1&type=calc&AL=3;11;7&AZ=1;4;5&AR=1;9;6&CA=1;25;4&CO=1;6;5&CT=2;8;4&DE=2;3;5&FL=1;8;4&GA=1;12;6&ID=1;4;4&IL=1;28;5&IN=2;13;4&IA=1;10;5&KS=2;8;5&KY=1;11;5&LA=3;10;4&ME=2;5;5&MD=2;8;4&MA=1;16;5&MI=2;19;4&MN=1;11;5&MS=3;9;8&MO=1;15;5&MT=1;4;5&NE=2;6;5&NV=1;3;5&NH=2;4;5&NJ=2;16;5&NM=1;4;5&NY=2;47;4&NC=1;14;5&ND=2;4;5&OH=1;25;4&OK=1;10;6&OR=2;6;4&PA=2;35;5&RI=1;4;5&SC=3;8;7&SD=2;4;5&TN=1;12;4&TX=1;23;6&UT=1;4;5&VT=2;3;6&VA=1;11;4&WA=1;8;5&WV=1;8;5&WI=1;12;5&WY=1;3;5)

Is this what you have in mind?


Title: Re: The Good Post Gallery
Post by: HokeyDood on January 08, 2013, 10:31:39 pm
http://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=167382 (http://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=167382)

Disliking Romney States is indeed very good.

Even Louisiana?  : (


Title: Re: The Good Post Gallery
Post by: Simfan34 on January 08, 2013, 10:38:32 pm
I think he means this:

(http://uselectionatlas.org/TOOLS/genusmap.php?year=2012&ev_c=1&pv_p=1&ev_p=1&type=calc&AL=1;9;8&AK=2;3;5&AZ=0;11;5&AR=1;6;6&CA=2;55;6&CO=2;9;6&CT=2;7;7&DE=2;3;7&DC=2;3;9&FL=0;29;4&GA=1;16;7&HI=2;4;7&ID=2;4;6&IL=2;20;8&IN=2;11;7&IA=2;6;7&KS=2;6;5&KY=0;8;6&LA=1;8;8&MD=2;10;8&MA=2;11;8&MI=2;16;8&MN=2;10;6&MS=1;6;9&MO=2;10;5&MT=2;3;6&NV=2;6;6&NH=2;4;8&NJ=2;14;6&NM=2;5;5&NY=2;29;7&NC=0;15;5&ND=2;3;7&OH=2;18;6&OK=0;7;6&OR=2;7;7&PA=2;20;6&RI=2;4;6&SC=1;9;8&SD=2;3;6&TN=1;11;7&TX=1;38;4&UT=2;6;7&VT=2;3;8&VA=0;13;5&WA=2;12;6&WV=2;5;5&WI=2;10;7&WY=2;3;6&ME=2;2;8&ME1=2;1;8&ME2=2;1;5&NE=2;2;7&NE1=2;1;6&NE2=2;1;7&NE3=2;1;6)

Who wouldn't like this map? Treasonists, that's who.


Title: Re: The Good Post Gallery
Post by: Trounce-'em Theresa on January 09, 2013, 12:38:02 am
To the left. Most of the potential democrats are to Obamas left but Cuomo.

Cuomo is also to the left of Obama on social issues. All of these candidates will have an easier job espousing liberal talking points now that the president has "evolved".

Cuomo is demonstrably to Obama's right on economic issues, however.

Yep, nothing wrong with that. Social issues are what the candidates are going to hang their hats on in the primary, however. Martin O'Malley certainly won't be trumpeting his fiscal record.

I'm certainly socially liberal, but I honestly have a problem with the Democratic Party abandoning its New Deal and Great Society principles while doubling down on social issues. It wins elections (I doubt it helps in your state, though :P), but it feels like we're forced right and end up losing our ideological souls. Andrew Cuomo, based on his record as governor, would be the most right-wing Democratic nominee in over 90 years.

Hell, I oppose Cuomo because I think he's too right-wing economically, and I'm me. You know, I'm all in favor of spending and tax cuts, but you can really do that without proposing to throw thousands of homeless youth onto the streets, or what he did to the public employees, or his crazy-ass teacher evaluation deal, which won't work. He's to my right.


Title: Re: The Good Post Gallery
Post by: traininthedistance on January 09, 2013, 12:54:01 am
I think he means this:

Naw, man, clearly Oldies has this map in mind:

(http://uselectionatlas.org/TOOLS/genusmap.php?year=2012&ev_c=0&pv_p=1&ev_p=0&type=calc&AL=1;9;5&AK=2;3;5&AZ=1;11;5&AR=2;6;5&CA=2;55;5&CO=2;9;5&CT=2;7;5&DE=2;3;5&DC=2;3;5&FL=2;29;5&GA=1;16;5&HI=2;4;5&ID=2;4;5&IL=2;20;5&IN=2;11;5&IA=2;6;5&KS=2;6;5&KY=2;8;5&LA=1;8;5&MD=2;10;5&MA=2;11;5&MI=2;16;5&MN=2;10;5&MS=1;6;5&MO=2;10;5&MT=2;3;5&NV=2;6;5&NH=2;4;5&NJ=2;14;5&NM=2;5;5&NY=2;29;5&NC=2;15;5&ND=2;3;5&OH=2;18;5&OK=2;7;5&OR=2;7;5&PA=2;20;5&RI=2;4;5&SC=1;9;5&SD=2;3;5&TN=2;11;5&TX=2;38;5&UT=2;6;5&VT=2;3;5&VA=2;13;5&WA=2;12;5&WV=2;5;5&WI=2;10;5&WY=2;3;5&ME=2;2;5&ME1=2;1;5&ME2=2;1;5&NE=2;2;5&NE1=2;1;5&NE2=2;1;5&NE3=2;1;6)

Most of the Romney states lean blue here instead!  What's not to like!


Title: Re: The Good Post Gallery
Post by: Northeast Rep Snowball on January 09, 2013, 12:58:02 pm
I think he means this:

Naw, man, clearly Oldies has this map in mind:

(http://uselectionatlas.org/TOOLS/genusmap.php?year=2012&ev_c=0&pv_p=1&ev_p=0&type=calc&AL=1;9;5&AK=2;3;5&AZ=1;11;5&AR=2;6;5&CA=2;55;5&CO=2;9;5&CT=2;7;5&DE=2;3;5&DC=2;3;5&FL=2;29;5&GA=1;16;5&HI=2;4;5&ID=2;4;5&IL=2;20;5&IN=2;11;5&IA=2;6;5&KS=2;6;5&KY=2;8;5&LA=1;8;5&MD=2;10;5&MA=2;11;5&MI=2;16;5&MN=2;10;5&MS=1;6;5&MO=2;10;5&MT=2;3;5&NV=2;6;5&NH=2;4;5&NJ=2;14;5&NM=2;5;5&NY=2;29;5&NC=2;15;5&ND=2;3;5&OH=2;18;5&OK=2;7;5&OR=2;7;5&PA=2;20;5&RI=2;4;5&SC=1;9;5&SD=2;3;5&TN=2;11;5&TX=2;38;5&UT=2;6;5&VT=2;3;5&VA=2;13;5&WA=2;12;5&WV=2;5;5&WI=2;10;5&WY=2;3;5&ME=2;2;5&ME1=2;1;5&ME2=2;1;5&NE=2;2;5&NE1=2;1;5&NE2=2;1;5&NE3=2;1;6)

Most of the Romney states lean blue here instead!  What's not to like!
I haven't followed this, but I thought that red was dem and blue was republican?


Title: Re: The Good Post Gallery
Post by: Simfan34 on January 09, 2013, 01:33:02 pm
It is. It's 1964 inverted.


Title: Re: The Good Post Gallery
Post by: A Strange Reflection on January 09, 2013, 01:44:31 pm
What is twitter and tweet?

A way for hep youngsters to talk to each other that a lot of people who aren't hep youngsters use. It's designed in such a way as to hinder, but not necessarily render entirely impossible, the development of complex thoughts.


Title: Re: The Good Post Gallery
Post by: Oldiesfreak1854 on January 09, 2013, 07:17:42 pm
It is. It's 1964 inverted.
Yeah, sort of.  I mean "blue" as it normally is used (i.e. Democrat).  In other words, they would be red on the Atlas. Your earlier map is more what I was thinking.  However,  Republicans need to be strong everywhere, including the South, to succeed.


Title: Re: The Good Post Gallery
Post by: Simfan34 on January 09, 2013, 08:02:43 pm
It is. It's 1964 inverted.
Yeah, sort of.  I mean "blue" as it normally is used (i.e. Democrat).  In other words, they would be red on the Atlas. Your earlier map is more what I was thinking.  However,  Republicans need to be strong everywhere, including the South, to succeed.

Not really. Even with this map, Dems lose 313-225. Looks like something from 1920, to be honest.

(http://uselectionatlas.org/TOOLS/genusmap.php?year=2012&ev_c=1&pv_p=0&ev_p=1&AL=1;9;6&AK=2;3;7&AZ=1;11;5&AR=1;6;6&CA=2;55;8&CO=2;9;8&CT=2;7;8&DE=2;3;6&DC=2;3;9&FL=1;29;4&GA=1;16;6&HI=2;4;7&ID=2;4;6&IL=2;20;5&IN=2;11;5&IA=2;6;5&KS=2;6;5&KY=1;8;6&LA=1;8;5&MD=1;10;6&MA=2;11;7&MI=2;16;7&MN=2;10;7&MS=1;6;5&MO=1;10;5&MT=2;3;5&NV=2;6;5&NH=2;4;5&NJ=1;14;5&NM=2;5;5&NY=2;29;6&NC=1;15;5&ND=2;3;5&OH=2;18;5&OK=1;7;6&OR=2;7;5&PA=2;20;5&RI=2;4;6&SC=1;9;5&SD=2;3;5&TN=1;11;5&TX=1;38;5&UT=2;6;7&VT=2;3;6&VA=1;13;5&WA=2;12;5&WV=1;5;6&WI=2;10;5&WY=2;3;6&ME=2;2;5&ME1=2;1;5&ME2=2;1;5&NE=2;2;5&NE1=2;1;5&NE2=2;1;5&NE3=2;1;6)

Maybe this in a lucky year? Oh dear, I've just reversed the colours; thanks to the map I still see it correctly!

(http://uselectionatlas.org/TOOLS/genusmap.php?year=2012&ev_c=1&pv_p=0&ev_p=1&AL=1;9;6&AK=2;3;7&AZ=1;11;5&AR=1;6;6&CA=2;55;8&CO=2;9;8&CT=2;7;8&DE=2;3;6&DC=2;3;9&FL=1;29;4&GA=1;16;6&HI=2;4;7&ID=1;4;6&IL=2;20;5&IN=2;11;5&IA=2;6;5&KS=1;6;5&KY=1;8;6&LA=1;8;5&MD=1;10;6&MA=2;11;7&MI=2;16;7&MN=2;10;7&MS=1;6;5&MO=1;10;5&MT=2;3;5&NV=2;6;5&NH=2;4;5&NJ=1;14;5&NM=2;5;5&NY=2;29;6&NC=1;15;5&ND=1;3;5&OH=2;18;5&OK=1;7;6&OR=2;7;5&PA=2;20;5&RI=2;4;6&SC=1;9;5&SD=1;3;5&TN=1;11;5&TX=1;38;5&UT=2;6;7&VT=2;3;6&VA=1;13;5&WA=2;12;5&WV=1;5;6&WI=2;10;5&WY=1;3;6&ME=2;2;5&ME1=2;1;5&ME2=2;1;5&NE=1;2;5&NE1=2;1;5&NE2=1;1;5&NE3=2;1;6)


Title: Re: The Good Post Gallery
Post by: Saturday's Cab Ride Home on January 10, 2013, 10:32:50 pm
What's inane about that? It's a great point, it serves as a deterrent, creates jobs, and isn't as harmful to those being processed as jail time or exuberant fines.


Title: Re: The Good Post Gallery
Post by: Badger on January 10, 2013, 10:50:19 pm
True. But it was Lewis who was being quoted, and his point was perfectly valid.

True. I misread it as part of Tweed's half-assed defense of driving under the influence. I've accordingly deleted my related posts as dreck.


Title: Re: The Good Post Gallery
Post by: minionofmidas - supplemental forum account on January 11, 2013, 06:26:57 am
I've accordingly deleted my related posts as dreck.
While that's a good start - only 8196 more to go - I want to know what all this is about. :(


Title: Re: The Good Post Gallery
Post by: Saturday's Cab Ride Home on January 11, 2013, 10:57:46 am
A reply to a quoting of your posts about the benefits using 12 step programs on drunk drivers even if the drivers aren't actual alcoholics.


Title: Re: The Good Post Gallery
Post by: A Strange Reflection on January 12, 2013, 08:26:01 am
eegads man....the fear is stong with this one


Ok, how's about something you think might actually have a change at getting passed?

But that's the issue: Nothing that would seriously help solve the problem has even a remote chance of being passed.


Title: Re: The Good Post Gallery
Post by: Platypus on January 16, 2013, 02:03:33 am
This thread on South Africa's political history is among the vry best the forum has ever had.

http://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=167844.0


Title: Re: The Good Post Gallery
Post by: Tetro Kornbluth on January 16, 2013, 07:59:19 am
Context necessary

Is it Sam Spade's ego?


Title: Re: The Good Post Gallery
Post by: Averroës on January 16, 2013, 01:19:41 pm
There seems to be a pretty stark contrast between Vermont/Western MA and the neighboring towns in Eastern NY... How comes?

I think the root cause of that is twofold: the political (state-boundary) divide between the communities in Massachusetts and New York and the geographic divide (the Taconic Range).

During settlement and the Early Republic, the difficulty in building transportation links across the mountains meant that Hudson Valley towns and Housatonic Valley towns were able to develop economies and cultures relatively independent of each other. The state boundary only reinforced the divide. Nowadays, the transportation problem has been mitigated, and you start to see Columbia County border towns (Austerlitz, Canaan, Hillsdale) become more Democratic in their voting habits. But still they're nowhere near the Democratic strength in Stockbridge and Great Barrington. That's a testament, I think, to the durability of political culture as well as an indication of the importance of a political boundary in defining people's daily activity spaces and mental geographies.


Title: Re: The Good Post Gallery
Post by: Trounce-'em Theresa on January 17, 2013, 02:40:40 am
RFK was really overrated when it came to civil rights.
Please watch the documentary "Freedom riders".  RFK called the Freedom Riders foolish, and thought they deserved to be taught a lesson (apparently for making him and his brother look bad) when the Mississippi police arrested them.  He only really began to care about civil rights when he realized that not doing anything made him look bad.
Also, lets not forget that his brother gave speeches to segregated (white only) audiences in the South while other prominent Democrats such as Stuart Symington refused to do so.
Ted was the only truly liberal Kennedy, fully capable of articulating progressive positions (because there's more to being a good politician than casting a vote) but he had his demons too.



Title: Re: The Good Post Gallery
Post by: memphis on January 17, 2013, 07:44:31 pm
You seem to be under the opinion that because your belief is principled or because it's a logical extension of existing, commonplace reasoning (i.e., that life begins at conception), it's not radical.

But in this society, it is. We're at a standoff regarding abortion rights in general, but very very few people seriously believe that raped women should be forced to have their baby. It's absolutely radical, and it's not a light decision. After having a man strip away her right not to be raped, we as a society believe that a group of men shouldn't then force her to carry her rapist's baby.

A lot of us are very conflicted on the issue of abortion. We know the facts -- we know what happens at conception, at what point a fetus is viable outside the womb, and we know the dangers of late-term abortions for both baby and mother. We try to create a patchwork of laws and rules to do the least amount of harm over an issue that no one will ever agree. I'm largely pro-choice, but not in 100% of situations. Just as some people are largely pro-life, but make exceptions for the life of the mother or rape.

It's not just about the baby, dude. It's about the woman. A woman who was just forcibly raped. And this woman is living in a highly discriminatory culture -- one where rape victims are frequently blamed for their own attack. One where, behind closed doors, high school football players in Ohio joke about raping and killing a classmate. It's a crime where perpetrators are almost never brought to justice. You can pretend that our culture abhors rape all you want -- the truth is that men in our culture are just a little bit too okay with it.



Why is that chart important? Because it's shows a side of rape we'd rather not see. Rape babies are often seen as the woman's fault. It's because the woman didn't fight hard enough to set off that mythical "in-body rape defense." It's because the woman "raped so easy." It's because the woman is trying to use being drunk as a defense about the sex we all know she probably wanted anyway. It's because the "rape" didn't happen -- it's just an excuse for the woman to get her abortion and escape the shame of being called a slut. Because isn't that what women who have sex with people who aren't us are? Sluts? These arguments are a very pervasive part of the ultra-conservative Republican culture right now. And they're abhorrent.

Being forced to choose between abortion and raising a rape baby is a pretty terrible thing for anyone -- pro-life or pro-choice. Our society believes that the woman -- the victim, forced to carry her attacker's child -- has the right to make the terrible decision on her own. What good can forcing this woman to carry her child have? You're just guaranteeing a terrible life for the child, a terrible life for the mother (who is obviously going to be unprepared to raise a child), and a "victory" for the genetic line that was somehow able to rationalize and commit one of the most heinous of crimes.

This isn't a question about intelligence. It's a question about culture and a question about empathy. And for those in the public who see good arguments on both sides of the abortion issue, there's really no middle ground here. Of course you err on the side of the mother here, rather than force her to live a nightmare for the rest of her life and birth/raise a baby she'd rather have aborted. Of course. Anything less is radical.


Title: Re: The Good Post Gallery
Post by: A Strange Reflection on January 18, 2013, 07:17:52 am
Came here to post that.


Title: Re: The Good Post Gallery
Post by: A Strange Reflection on January 18, 2013, 04:59:08 pm
First off, the district is D+5, no Democrat with that high of a PVI district should be voting against necessary aid to those effected by Sandy, it's totally unacceptable. It's not like Republicans are winning that sort of seat, so a primary isn't a risk.

This little attempt to flip the script is a fail, which is no surprise coming from the poster. Your party threw out a 30 year senator for being too conciliatory and ended up with the nominee that believes that rape is a gift from God, who went on to lose.



Title: Re: The Good Post Gallery
Post by: dead0man on January 20, 2013, 02:30:57 am
I don't normally post in the echo chamber, but I thought this was brilliant.
I'm a postmoderate.  We pomos are different from traditional moderates.  We place everything on a political matrix in the shape of a sphere.  We place any sentence that can be identified as a "political stance" on the surface of said sphere as an extremist position.  We then fill the rest of the sphere with empty space and place our position at the center.

The centered position is formed by collecting all the statements of the sphere surface, breaking them down as words, and finding the ten most common words spoken.   These ten words the form the ten word sentence of our belief on any said issue.


Title: Re: The Good Post Gallery
Post by: Napoleon on January 20, 2013, 02:35:04 am
This thread is not meant to be used as an echo chamber.


Title: Re: The Good Post Gallery
Post by: Saturday's Cab Ride Home on January 20, 2013, 11:26:13 pm
wait memphis is a racist and misogynist?  did i miss something?

He is neither a racist nor a misogynist. Unless you think there are no differences between men and women. In that case, Memphis is certainly a misogynist.


Title: Re: The Good Post Gallery
Post by: Maxwell on January 21, 2013, 02:27:13 am
Try finding a source for any of those quotes.

Sure thing.

#1: http://www.nytimes.com/1991/07/21/books/on-the-way-with-lbj.html?pagewanted=all&src=pm

Quote from: The New York Times
Mr. Dallek quotes him defending the Supreme Court appointment of the very well-known Thurgood Marshall, rather than a black judge less identified with the civil rights cause, by saying to a staff member, "Son, when I appoint a n-r to the court, I want everyone to know he's a n-r."

#2: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/the-relentless-conservative/the-democratic-partys-two_b_933995.html

Quote from: The Huffington Post
"I'll have those n-rs voting Democratic for the next 200 years."
~ Lyndon B. Johnson to two governors on Air Force One

#3: http://www.fdfny.org/blog/2011/09/18/these-uppity-negroes-lbj/

Quote from: The Fredrick Douglass Foundation
”These Negroes, they‘re getting pretty uppity these days and that‘s a problem for us since they‘ve got something now they never had before, the political pull to back up their uppityness. Now we‘ve got to do something about this, we‘ve got to give them a little something, just enough to quiet them down, not enough to make a difference.”

~Lyndon B. Johnson (Democrat)

President Lyndon Baines Johnson, And is “Great Society” to help the Negro… was recorded on a White House taped (and saved) conversation claiming, “I’ll have them n-rs voting Democratic for the next two hundred years.”

These sources enough for you? ::) Sorry to break it to you, but LBJ was no great lover of the black man. I do this out of no love for Oldiesfreak- just that I didn't think you shouldn't be able to get away with claiming that what I knew were three very real quotes were fabrications.


Title: Re: The Good Post Gallery
Post by: Come grasp the mighty avatar of our admin on January 21, 2013, 09:09:32 am
I was with my niece yesterday, and My Little Pony was on, and I really can't see how any adults are watching this. At no point, did this look like it was meant for anyone over the age of 10. No adult humor, no nothing.. it was just creepy


Title: Re: The Good Post Gallery
Post by: Saturday's Cab Ride Home on January 21, 2013, 01:53:03 pm
Adults who like the for boys Adventure Time are just as lame as the bronies.  There's nothingIn these shows that an adult with no children can find useful.  Read a book. Expand your knowledge.

I'm not really interested in the ponies and I still don't know what Adventure Time actually is, but I find the idea that 'proper adults' should be able to divine some kind of utility-value (however defined) out of things they read or watch, and that the extent to which they admit of doing so has a direct correlation to the ostensible target audience age, a little questionable.


Title: Re: The Good Post Gallery
Post by: Grumpy Santa on January 22, 2013, 03:48:49 pm
No, no.  Are you being sarcastic?  You do realize this is a terrible thing to do to someone - to ghettoize them.


Title: Re: The Good Post Gallery
Post by: Franzl on January 22, 2013, 04:41:55 pm
Stop with all these idiotic "look at people defending themselves!" posts. Especially Miles, who ought to know better- it's one thing for krazen (a certified troll) and some newbie to do it, but it's beneath you.

One thousand Americans have died since Newtown at the hands of guns. One thousand. That number in and of itself is indefensible. Yet you people propose we do nothing. It's sickening. For what? Your right to overthrow the government? How about we cut crime by making it legal to be black for one thing (because it's practically illegal when one in three wind up in prison), and ending the insane "War" on Drugs?

In other words, never tell anyone when guns are used to defend innocent lives?

Well of course you're gonna sway people's opinions when you deliberately deceive them by distorting the news.

Here's a better analogy (or just an analogy):

It would be inane to constantly be posting articles along the lines of "Flight from Bakerfield to Seattle lands safely" or "Except for that one annoying baby, Toronto-Havana flight is without incident". Things working the way they should be is not news. However when things don't work the way they should be working, as in "Flight from Sao Paulo to Paris crashes over Atlantic Ocean with all aboard killed" or "All Boeing 787s grounded due to mechanical problem", then that is news. Management by exception, you know. My father used to harp on about that when I got a B in one class and I tried to point out all the other As I got. Still does, actually. But he's right.

Only problem with my analogy is that guns are less airplanes and more so hydrogen-filled airships. And we all know how those turned out. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hindenburg_disaster)

The point is that if guns all were always used they way they should and no undeserving people were ever shot, I'm pretty sure no one would have a problem with them. But anyone with more than an iota of intelligence should realize that's not how guns actually end up being used, and mass-posting news about guns being used in self-defense isn't going to change that.


Title: Re: The Good Post Gallery
Post by: A Strange Reflection on January 23, 2013, 03:52:00 pm
Eastern Poland wasn't founded on ethnic cleansing (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flight_and_expulsion_of_Germans_(1944%E2%80%931950)) (or if it was, it didn't occur in the 20th century), so Eastern Poland.

What is now 'Eastern Poland' used to have the largest Jewish population on the planet. I gather that this is no longer the case. Of course it wasn't the Poles that did that, but then it mostly wasn't the Poles that removed (in an infinitely less evil way, of course) the Germans from Silesia and so on. Pretty much the entire of Central and Eastern Europe was 'founded' on 'ethnic cleansing.' Thank you, nationalism.


Title: Re: The Good Post Gallery
Post by: Saturday's Cab Ride Home on January 23, 2013, 11:18:12 pm
I think it's more that the educated rich in Central London and Paris and Scandinavia are still secure in the instinctive knowledge that they own the country and the government, and that when government becomes smaller, the parts of it that they use will never be affected.


Title: Re: The Good Post Gallery
Post by: Oldiesfreak1854 on January 25, 2013, 09:03:19 am
Oh, how I long for the day when one of my posts will make it into the Good Post Gallery.


Title: Re: The Good Post Gallery
Post by: Franzl on January 25, 2013, 09:37:53 am
Oh, how I long for the day when one of my posts will make it into the Good Post Gallery.

There's a relatively simple solution for that. Any idea?


Title: Re: The Good Post Gallery
Post by: Northam for Governor '17 on January 25, 2013, 11:49:35 am
Oh, how I long for the day when one of my posts will make it into the Good Post Gallery.

There's a relatively simple solution for that. Any idea?

It'll never happen until he defeats the evil racist revisionist Democrats!


Title: Re: The Good Post Gallery
Post by: Grumpy Santa on January 25, 2013, 03:03:12 pm
They post photos of men who 'cheat'?  So, just photos of every male?


Title: Re: The Good Post Gallery
Post by: SUSAN CRUSHBONE on January 25, 2013, 03:18:31 pm
Oh, how I long for the day when one of my posts will make it into the Good Post Gallery.

'k then.
[context]
My guess is that I'm in the latter category.


Title: Re: The Good Post Gallery
Post by: Paul Kemp on January 25, 2013, 03:27:20 pm
Oh, how I long for the day when one of my posts will make it into the Good Post Gallery.

Those who only want never do.


Title: Re: The Good Post Gallery
Post by: sjoyce on January 26, 2013, 02:23:46 pm
ROFL

I find this post to be the height of well-reasoned debate and logical argument.


Title: Re: The Good Post Gallery
Post by: Snowstalker's Last Stand on January 27, 2013, 05:20:50 pm
Listen you piece of s**t, I am dr5unk as  but i am happy you did your patriotic duty and paid you taxes. God bless Obama and America.


Title: Re: The Good Post Gallery
Post by: Saturday's Cab Ride Home on January 28, 2013, 07:18:10 pm
What's your problem, Phil?

A sense of self-superiority based on something he really doesn't have much, if any, experience with beyond a fourth grade DARE class.


Title: Re: The Good Post Gallery
Post by: opebo on January 29, 2013, 07:36:50 am
OK here's an experiment, translate this awesome and classic opebo post into both Polish and Czech and compare:

No, no, no.  If you are a poor, and you have a job at the Electric Company, you stay there, and say 'yes sir' and 'no sir, and just batten down the hatches and wait.  It will all be over soon enough.  No need to rush it by getting conned up the a**s by some Kiwi b******s and ending up living under a bridge.

Seriously, I know poors who work at the Power Company (true they're from the previous unionized generations so they made $70,000/year, but still), and they survived.  Every one of them - and they will get to die in hospitals with medical treatments.  Yes, Public Utilities are not government jobs, but they're the next best thing.

Quote from: Czech
Ne, ne, ne. Pokud jste chudým, a budeš mít práci v elektrické společnosti, zůstaň tam, a říci "ano, pane" a "Ne, pane, a jen lať poklopy a čekat. To bude všechno brzy skončí dost. Není třeba spěchat ji dostat Podvedl do zadku některých Kiwi bastardů a končí bydlení pod mostem.Vážně, já vím Poors, kteří pracují v elektrárně společnosti (pravda, že jste z předchozí generace sdružená tak oni dělali 70.000 dolarů / rok, ale stále), a oni přežili. Každý z nich - a budou se zemřít v nemocnicích s lékařské ošetření. Ano, veřejné služby nejsou vládní pracovní místa, ale jsou to další nejlepší věc.

Quote from: Polish
Nie, nie, nie. Jeśli jesteś biedny i masz pracę w firmie elektrycznej, to tam, i powiedzieć: "Tak, proszę pana" i "Nie, proszę pana, i po prostu listwa dół luków i czekać. Wszystko będzie się wystarczająco szybko. Nie trzeba się spieszyć by oszukali uzyskiwanie w tyłek przez niektórych drani Kiwi, a kończąc na życie pod mostem.Poważnie, wiem Poors, którzy pracują w firmie elektrycznej (prawda, że są z poprzednich związków zawodowych pokoleń więc zrobili 70.000 dolarów / rok, ale jednak), a oni przeżyli. Każdy z nich - i dla nich będą umierać w szpitalach z zabiegów lekarskich. Tak, użyteczności publicznej nie są zadania rządowe, ale to następną dobrą rzeczą.

...Looks pretty different to me actually.


Title: Re: The Good Post Gallery
Post by: Talleyrand on January 29, 2013, 08:08:33 pm
Perry's approval ratings have been consistently bad since the end of his first full term. He always wins through a combination of fracturing his opposition and convincing voters that if they vote him out of office, the state is going to be overrun by UN shock troops out to shut down the oil refineries and confiscate the guns. His reliance on personal graft and engendering fear of "meddling outsiders" is not unlike that of someone running an ex-Soviet petro-state in Central Asia.

Cute story.  Actually, Perry has won re-election so much by:

(1) Eliminating primary opposition through cronyism
(2) Staying out of the public eye as much as possible so straight ticket Republicans don't know how stupid he really is
(3) Being blessed with a state that elects its governor during the midterms where minority turnout is low

A lot of politicians win this way, but most are smart enough to know not to run for President and blow their cover.


Title: Re: The Good Post Gallery
Post by: SUSAN CRUSHBONE on January 30, 2013, 05:32:15 am
I was going to say "words fail me" but now I've found my voice:

This is just plain silly.

Calling the mass murder of millions by the Nazis "senseless" is clearly meant in context of "tragic", "horrible", and "a really, really really bad thing". To expand that molehill into several pages of pontificating argument that this proves liberals like Obama don't understand that there are organized dangerous forces for evil in the world today is beyond absurd. That's like trying to assess the merits of administration agriculture policy based on what type of vegatables he likes in his salad. Does anyone really believe Obama or other liberals don't understand that Nazism was a highly organized totalitarian cultural and military machine of genocide in furtherance of its ideology?

The article's point was as profound as a sophmore's letter to the college paper.

Everybody is a rational actor who does the good thing as their perceive it to be, even racists and Nazis.

That's what the National Review, I guess, is trying to say.  The only problem is that they don't extend this kind of understanding to everyone.  For example, I'm sure many National Review readers believe Palestinians fight the Israelis out of inherit evil and hatred, and not because they feel oppressed by a foreign government stealing their land.  Or that gays are interested in pursuing destruction of other families, as opposed to pursuing families of their own.

Rational actors is a truth that politicos only believe when it's convenient for them.

The millions of Germans who went along with Hitler's agenda without complaint weren't rational actors. Being rational requires some sort of critical thought process and those people did not use one. They did what they were told, they got a kind of high from being part of all the rallies and the banners and the pageantry of the Nazi state. It made them feel special and made them feel like their country was powerful and important after several years in which it had lost both of those things. If you asked an average Johann on the street to explain Nazi racial theory or the tenets of national socialism to you, he wouldn't be able to. It's not unlike the way most Tea Partiers have probably never read Ayn Rand or any of the Austrian economists; they just tell you they stand for "faith, family and freedom" or some combination. If you had asked an Obama delegate at the DNC last year to explain why they support him, they would have just given you some filler about how he's an "inspirational figure" who is "transforming America." Maybe the nifty logo got them on board.


Title: Re: The Good Post Gallery
Post by: Saturday's Cab Ride Home on January 30, 2013, 11:34:20 am
At least Inks doesn't deal with his fellow moderators any other way than with the rest of us. You may disagree with his policy but you got to respect his impartiality.

I don't. This is an ONLINE FORUM not a state prison, Inks needs to chill with his extreme hard-line policing. He's obsessed with the means as opposed to the ends and it makes for having a highly negative impact on the forum. The moderating community as a whole has reached that point. A little drunk on power, a little high on themselves, and a whole lot of unnecessary expressions of control over relative calm. This shouldn't even be a conversation, it's ridiculous. I'm of the mentality that unless something is wildly, universally offensive, leave it the hell alone until a problem actually arises rather than stirring the pot more than if we didn't even have moderators. They have completely defeated the purpose of their existence by exacerbating exactly what it is they're supposed to quell. Just chill the Inks out, yo. Now you've got me all peeved over nothing...and I'm gonna have to smoke a j now. Thanks a lot.


Title: Re: The Good Post Gallery
Post by: Grumpy Santa on January 30, 2013, 03:41:52 pm
Yeah Opebo is on a roll today.  It's almost like I hurt his feelings.

Christ man, have you no decency?  Even in this place..

Let me explain the procedure to you: you insult people in other threads, and then your achievements are enshrined here by your admirers.  You don't just clutter the place up with your dimwit.


Title: Re: The Good Post Gallery
Post by: A Strange Reflection on January 31, 2013, 02:08:29 pm

Man, making fun of folks who are old enough to play with computers but who also actually enjoy My Little Pony is a bit like making fun of people in wheelchairs, or of retards. Sure, we all do it, but only among close friends and certainly not in public.
Seriously, dude, you seem to be an awful person. Making fun of people in wheelchairs is not even close to acceptable, and we sure don't "all do it". Retards is an insult. As to making fun of people who enjoy a girly cartoon, this is perfectly acceptable, you can do it all day, go on.


Title: Re: The Good Post Gallery
Post by: A Strange Reflection on January 31, 2013, 02:51:46 pm
Users who disapprove of Al should be banned on sight.


Title: Re: The Good Post Gallery
Post by: Napoleon on January 31, 2013, 02:55:29 pm
Users who disapprove of Al should be banned on sight.

That sort of post doesn't belong in this thread.


Title: Re: The Good Post Gallery
Post by: A Strange Reflection on January 31, 2013, 03:00:20 pm
Considering the circumstances, I allowed myself to exceptionally troll the thread a bit (ie what many posters do on a regular basis).


Title: Re: The Good Post Gallery
Post by: Oakvale on January 31, 2013, 04:22:03 pm

Man, making fun of folks who are old enough to play with computers but who also actually enjoy My Little Pony is a bit like making fun of people in wheelchairs, or of retards. Sure, we all do it, but only among close friends and certainly not in public.
Seriously, dude, you seem to be an awful person. Making fun of people in wheelchairs is not even close to acceptable, and we sure don't "all do it". Retards is an insult. As to making fun of people who enjoy a girly cartoon, this is perfectly acceptable, you can do it all day, go on.

Taking angus seriously makes this a bad post.


Title: Re: The Good Post Gallery
Post by: A Strange Reflection on January 31, 2013, 04:25:09 pm
OK, I'll redeem myself:

One of the more disgusting things about a crisis like this is that you always have people who feel a need to prove just how clever they are at the expense of the actual people living without food or petrol in the bombed remains of their city. The Assad regime is not intent on 'stability' (even the idea of a continuation of the status quo is absurd at this point, really), it just wants to annihilate its opposition or, at the very least, take as many people as possible down with it. From the beginning of this mess Assad has shown himself to be ruthless and ready to employ whatever force necessary to stay in power (and a good deal more if people also need to be taught a lesson).

None of this is news. The Assad family hasn't exactly a very glorious history when it comes to maintaining 'stability' or respecting human rights. Are there tactical considerations behind the West's support for the rebels? Possibly, but that's highly irrelevant. It's not as if Russia and China are being objective observators in this whole mess. Really, arguing in favour of Assad because of what you *think* may happen when he goes down, is beyond the pale. Yeah, I know you know all these cool facts about shi'a and sunni muslims (and alewites! and suriacs!), but the way people throw around religious divides as the be-all and end-all of politics in the region is about as absurd as it would be for a student of the 19th century to look at the relations between the Great Powers exclusively trough the spectre of catholic vs. protestant nations. It is also a good deal less innocent.


Title: Re: The Good Post Gallery
Post by: A Strange Reflection on February 01, 2013, 04:05:51 pm
Quote
Drawing on fear, ignorance, and hatred to stir people up against things they know nothing about it not only reprehensible, it's also the antithesis of progress. The Republican Party feeds off the resentment of diversity. I became a Republican immediately upon registering to vote because I believed in the message of a smaller, efficient government that gets out of the way of the people. And I heard that coming from the politicians I supported most. I was a happy Republican until I saw the results. The things they proclaimed were in exact opposition to their actions upon actually holding office. In the leadup to the financial crisis they actively opposed actions to protect the people in favor of policies that misled the people and siphoned their money off into the coffers of the already bloated, corrupt, government-backed financial industry. Then when it actually hit, they vehemently resisted shifting the negative effects of a shattered economy onto those to blame. They actively insist that the rest of the country pay instead. I by no means support higher taxes on business or the rich, I simply insist that my elected officials execute their jobs in enforcing existing tax laws. Our current system of taxation, which is protected at all costs by Republicans (unless they support full blown regressive taxation), allows for massive abuse of our nation's taxpayers. Everything the Republican Party proclaims itself to stand for, it actively and aggressively opposes in office. And then has the gall to manipulate its supporters into standing behind actions that negatively effect them above anyone else. So ultimately I think the Republican Party needs to 1) stop lying to its supports by proclaiming their actions support small business and the "little guy" while taking direct action against them, 2) stop manipulating its supporters by creating culture wars and blaming them on their opponents who are simply trying to gain rights and freedoms for Americans, 3) stop attacking American people that don't fall in line with antiquated, ignorant social policies, 4) expand the burden of a shattered economy to all Americans rather than just those without power and money, and 5) at least pretend not to be abusing the structure of the federal government for your advantage. I suppose I'm reaching for the stars with that last one, but I do think it's "most important". There are a lot more things I think the Republican Party ought to be doing (or more accurately stop doing) to actually support a better, stronger, safer, more fair, prosperous, and free nation, but beyond knowing nobody will read this, I know that none of it will happen in my lifetime regardless. Good luck, I'll be rooting against you and the Democratic wing of the corporate American police state for the foreseeable future.


Title: Re: The Good Post Gallery
Post by: shua on February 01, 2013, 04:17:17 pm
Reactionary.

The 75 thousand or so that they'll spend on a full-time rent-a-cop could buy lots of computers, or art supplies, or musical instruments.  At a time when teacher's are being cut and class sizes are being expanded to accommodate shrinking budgets, this seems like a poor appropriate of funds.

Call me a weenie, but I think it's overboard.  It also creates an extremely hostile learning environment.  The culture is pretty freaky already, without raising a generation of children who think it is normal to pass through metal detectors and in front of armed guards just to learn.

I guess I'm losing my erection.  I've generally been a defender of second-amendment rights, as you'll know from my posts, but if maintaining the right to arm means that we have to live in a police state, then I'd be willing to rethink it.

Dad, why is there a policeman in my kindergarten class?  Oh, you know how it is, son, for the same reason that there's an Early Pregnancy Test vending machine in all the girls' restrooms.  One in eight of your classmates will be arrested before his 30th birthday, and one is six will get pregnant before she is married.  This is all very normal stuff.  Just be careful the way you sling your water bottle around on the playground.  You may get a bullet in your head if you pull it out of your pocket too quickly.

That's a creepy world, Gramps.  Not a world I'd want to create.


Title: Re: The Good Post Gallery
Post by: memphis on February 01, 2013, 08:41:30 pm
It does us no favors to pretend that hard-line conservatives aren't often racist.


Title: Re: The Good Post Gallery
Post by: We Have A Pope on February 02, 2013, 11:51:08 pm
He was a goddamn Nazi, I don't care if he invented the goddamn assembly line.


Title: Re: The Good Post Gallery
Post by: Kitteh on February 03, 2013, 02:09:11 pm
Very true.

To those who think he was a freedom fighter, I'd like genuinely like to hear your reasoning.  Even if he was a successful business leader, do you at least acknowledge his extreme anti-semitism and Nazi sympathies?  And if so, what is your rationale for ignoring those?  Just curious.

The same reason we all ignore negative qualities in people we like: we feel like it, and life is a lot easier that way.


Title: Re: The Good Post Gallery
Post by: Mechaman on February 04, 2013, 12:37:20 pm
The Wehrmod gets put down

Phil seems to have a serious inferiority complex.

Uh, dude, Inks is the one who repeatedly calls people out and then locks threads so they can't even respond. I'd say someone who can't ever let someone else get the last word is the one with the inferiority complex. He does it to Phil, he did it to Jmfcst, I mean he just recently did it to Simfan. I've pointed this out to him before, it seems like he couldn't care less.

I don't remember doing that to jmfcst, but I know I haven't done it to Simfan... so I'm not sure where you got that idea from.

You did it many times to Jmfcst, and I know you know, because we PMed back and forth about it. I also know you did it to Simfan, because you locked the thread while I was posting in it, unlocked and posted exactly what I was going to post (even in question form!), and then locked it again so he couldn't get a chance to respond. Even though there was no reason to lock it.

Hey bud, ever think that maybe when the majority of the forum has a problem with your moderation, that it's you and not the posters that are causing the trouble? None of this drama surrounds Torie, or Mr. Moderate, or Joe Republic, or Gustaf. So what's the deal?

And no. The fuehrer's response which amounted to no more than "no I daint!" hardly qualifies as a remotely good comeback.


Title: Re: The Good Post Gallery
Post by: A Strange Reflection on February 04, 2013, 05:40:56 pm
I'd like to see Inks give a serious response to this one.

Why is it that when Alcon was the sole moderator of FC and OT, these scuffles rarely, if ever, happened?

The forum has not gotten worse.  In fact, things that used to slip by regularly are all locked up tight before anyone can blink now.

Inks, this moderation business is ruining your reputation here.  And that's sad, because we've lost any semblance of you as a poster and now see you only as a full time moderator.

Someone, I'm guessing you, deleted one of my posts recently as well with no mention of it to me.  The post simply disappeared.  Sure, it was a very fat woman sitting on a bench with her gunt hanging out and wasn't necessarily on topic... but I'm pretty sure it was in the OT board, where fat woman with exposed gunts are wont to be.

In all seriousness, Phil and the others have a point.  You take your post way too seriously as moderator and it's actively taking away from the forum.  I'd simply ask you to resign as moderator.. but I think you can be part of the solution.

And if you can't, then maybe you should resign and let this fall in someone else's lap.  There's no shame in that.

I think what most people want is a return to the days where Alcon only moderated the most blatant trolls or insults.  Trashing your moderating style is not grounds for infraction.  Joking around where both parties are totally aware it is a joke... is not grounds for infraction.. etc etc

The job requires some intuition.  You can't just go by the book.


Title: Re: The Good Post Gallery
Post by: Saturday's Cab Ride Home on February 05, 2013, 10:47:06 pm
The Democratic Party was found in the 1820's, decades before the Jim Crow laws in the South.  The Democratic Party was founded as a result of a split in the Democratic-Republican party with one faction, the Democrats taking a populist route.  While it is true many Democrats from the end of Reconstruction to about the mid-20th century were supports of segregation and played on racial tension, it is not true that Jim Crow shaped the very foundation and philosophy of the party, as you claim.  Rather, it was a horrible and repugnant decision taken by the party in the aftermath of the Civil War, but it was not part in the party’s foundation. 

No one is disagreeing with you that Democrats were segregationists in the past, but the idea that this unfortunate past is somehow irrevocably tied to everything the Party still does is plain wrong.  It would be the equivalent of me saying the Republican Party is intrinsically tied to homophobia forever, because of the actions of some Republican politicians today and in recent history, pushing for gay marriage bans.  I strongly disagree with the Republicans on this issue.  That being said, for me to say that everything the Republicans do from now to the end of time is somehow influenced by this horrible position is wrong and I would never make that claim. 

You see, here is the thing.  The beliefs and ideologies of people, groups, and even entire organizations can change over time.  Should we hold all Germans born today as responsible for the actions their country took in WWII?  Should we hold all Americans responsible for the actions our ancestors took against Native Americans, actions politicians of BOTH parties supported?  I hope you can see why I think that it is ridiculous to say that everything we do is somehow a reflection of the past, especially if we’ve changed. 

Judging by your posting history, I somehow feel posting this is a pointless exercise on my part.  I know people with deeply-held beliefs are very unlikely to change them based on a post from some stranger on a discussion forum, and your beliefs seem deeply-held.  Still, I hope what I said at least provides something for you to reflect on. 


Title: Re: The Good Post Gallery
Post by: SUSAN CRUSHBONE on February 06, 2013, 05:15:16 am
The favorite of the forum Democrats (and real Democrats to an even greater extent) in 2016 seems to be former First Lady/CarpetbaggerSenator/Secretary of State Hillary Clinton. Given her name recognition and the fact that she's admittedly done a good enough job as SoS, this current frontrunner status is natural. A lot could change over four years, but it seems likely that she will be in the public eye of speculation for at least the next two years (if she chooses not to run).

I've made it apparent before, but I do not support Hillary Clinton. Though Obama was at least perceived as a progressive and may yet move a little left in his second term, Clinton seems to be fairly "moderate" on domestic policy. If her husband is any indication (plus, you know, the 2008 campaign), she's at best a centrist and at worst a mainstream European conservative. In an effort to counter the crypto-fascist trend of the Republican Party since Reagan, Democratic politicians including Gary Hart and the Clintons have advocated retaining (or doubling down on) cultural liberalism while moving towards a neoliberal economic position.

Though big money has done a good job hiding it, the new attitude of unrestricted free trade, austerity, deregulation, and privatization has fundamentally failed, yet the Democratic Party has failed to move towards sensible leftism on anything besides same-sex marriage and possibly immigration. Obama is being tarnished as a "socialist" at the bare minimum for being marginally to the left of Bill and Hillary.

I will concede that Hillary Clinton would not really be different from Obama in terms of her policy as hypothetical president. If she's the nominee, I'd probably vote for her, and she'd probably be at least an okay president. So what really got me mad? Her supporters. In the forum, in the media (I could make a second rant about how all the liberal talking heads, even the so-called "progressives", are shilling her as much as possible and failing to talk to any Democrat who isn't also on board), and with most of the Democrats I meet. Every other new topic in the 2016 boards is about her.

When anyone, Democratic, Republican, or Independent, says anything remotely negative, they're faced with a swarm of mindless drones, many of whom probably viscerally opposed Hillary's 2008 run (for good reason). The enthusiasm of their support when Obama's second term has just started really reminds me of the hordes of Ron Paul supporters we thankfully won't have to deal with again.

My advice to the Clintards? Before mindlessly jumping on the bandwagon that the voice on the TV is telling you to jump on, take a good look at Hillary's record in the Senate, her statements during the 2008 campaign (also remember that her campaign was the first to dig up the birther crap). If you're still a Hillary supporter, then at least you have something to back it up with.


Title: Re: The Good Post Gallery
Post by: Grumpy Santa on February 06, 2013, 09:48:53 am
I'd like to see Inks give a serious response to this one.

Why is it that when Alcon was the sole moderator of FC and OT, these scuffles rarely, if ever, happened?

The forum has not gotten worse.  In fact, things that used to slip by regularly are all locked up tight before anyone can blink now.

Inks, this moderation business is ruining your reputation here.  And that's sad, because we've lost any semblance of you as a poster and now see you only as a full time moderator.

Someone, I'm guessing you, deleted one of my posts recently as well with no mention of it to me.  The post simply disappeared.  Sure, it was a very fat woman sitting on a bench with her gunt hanging out and wasn't necessarily on topic... but I'm pretty sure it was in the OT board, where fat woman with exposed gunts are wont to be.

In all seriousness, Phil and the others have a point.  You take your post way too seriously as moderator and it's actively taking away from the forum.  I'd simply ask you to resign as moderator.. but I think you can be part of the solution.

And if you can't, then maybe you should resign and let this fall in someone else's lap.  There's no shame in that.

I think what most people want is a return to the days where Alcon only moderated the most blatant trolls or insults.  Trashing your moderating style is not grounds for infraction.  Joking around where both parties are totally aware it is a joke... is not grounds for infraction.. etc etc

The job requires some intuition.  You can't just go by the book.

He's smart not to, believe me.


Title: Re: The Good Post Gallery
Post by: Paul Kemp on February 07, 2013, 01:24:20 pm
So my moderate Democrat step uncle (who was apolitical) isn’t dead? So he doesn’t have the problem of being…well, dead? Where did he go Link? Is he on vacation? Is he in New Orleans for the Super Bowl and Mardi Gras? Visiting Central Park in New York? Perhaps at a bluegrass festival in Live Oak? Please enlighten me on why average people are never murdered, because that’s basically what you just said.

No one is glad your step uncle died, and no one thinks his death is any less meaningful because of his political leanings (or lack thereof). That said, there's no guarantee that he'd have lived had be been armed. Just as there's no guarantee that the monsters who shot and killed him would have had the means had they not lived in America, a country that allows even the most hardened lawbreaker the opportunity to gain access to military-grade weaponry so long as he's willing to travel to the right state and dealer.

His point is that average people are almost never murdered, which is, to be fair, absolutely true. In 2009, the murder rate dropped to 5 per 100,000, the lowest it's ever been. (That murder rate includes "non-negligent manslaughter.")

Still pretty high? Arguably. But if your uncle is white, then his likelihood to have been murdered drops even more. In New York City, for example, 96% of shooting victims are either black or latino. African Americans make up about 12% of the population, but account for over 50% of the shooting victims nationally. And since your uncle was in his home, it's also relevant to mention that if you're going to be shot and killed by a stranger, it's unlikely to happen in your own home -- only 4.8% of murders are committed there.

No one is glad your uncle died -- he got dealt a really ugly hand in the sh**ttiest lottery known to man. Sorry. But those of us who think there needs to be more regulations on gun ownership are motivated in taking guns out of the hands of the bad guys -- something the NRA is literally on the record of being against everywhere but in press releases.


Title: Re: The Good Post Gallery
Post by: Snowstalker's Last Stand on February 07, 2013, 06:04:45 pm
Forgive Snowstalker; he's been on a bit of a trolling spree lately.

Trolling spree? It's not trolling to say what he's saying. I'm done playing nice about this; Napoleon getting any endorsements, especially from actually good and serious people like yourself, is an outright joke. Only in Atlasia would someone who is still currently President, who has an abominable reputation with obscene approval numbers in a second term that has ranged from "ugh" bad to "let's-just-pretend-he-isn't-President-anymore" bad, who has spent more time trolling the Senate than doing anything else (and is not above even trolling his own party's convention) (http://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=168904.msg3615038#msg3615038) would then announce with a month left in his term that he is running for Senate, and then out of nowhere get raucous endorsements.

There are moments when people need some time on the sidelines to reform and get back in the swing of things from the ground up after spending far too much time in the business, as it were. This is undeniably one of those times. Napoleon doesn't deserve this, and that people are endorsing him at all is perhaps more a testament to the presently decaying state of the Liberal Party and your lack of ability to find better candidates and the counter-productive attitude of certain posters who value bizarre personal loyalty above doing even a remotely good job.

Are we in an alternate universe or something? A couple months ago, people were despairing at the horrible, awful, terrible, no good, very bad job Napoleon was doing as President and how eager they were to move on. Are you people into self-harm, or something? This is Exhibit A of why we never solve any of Atlasia's problems.


Title: Re: The Good Post Gallery
Post by: Хahar 🤔 on February 07, 2013, 06:45:31 pm
lol atlasia


Title: Re: The Good Post Gallery
Post by: Come grasp the mighty avatar of our admin on February 07, 2013, 06:49:52 pm
lol atlasia

There should be a rule against this stuff here.


Title: Re: The Good Post Gallery
Post by: sjoyce on February 07, 2013, 07:00:43 pm
It's rather ridiculous that we have to rehash these arguments again, Mr. SoEA who posted nothing for over a month and Mr. PPT who disappeared completely and couldn't finish out his term. We all make mistakes- big deal. While I wouldn't find it a particularly good use of my time, I could point out everything each of you has done wrong at some point or another. Why? How would doing that make the game more fun, the experience better? For most of us, this game isn't life or death serious.

Napoleon getting any endorsements, especially from actually good and serious people like yourself, is an outright joke.

I'm serious, and I'm a good person. Why wouldn't other good and serious people support me?

Quote
Only in Atlasia would someone who is still currently President, who has an abominable reputation with obscene approval numbers in a second term that has ranged from "ugh" bad to "let's-just-pretend-he-isn't-President-anymore" bad,

38% isn't "obscene". It's disappointing, yes. It's not the high point of my time here. Oh f**king well. I see nothing wrong with moving on and making sure it doesn't happen again. By the way, you don't have to pretend I'm not President, you can vote me into the Senate and have a new one. Genius!

Quote
who has spent more time trolling the Senate than doing anything else (and is not above even trolling his own party's convention) (http://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=168904.msg3615038#msg3615038) would then announce with a month left in his term that he is running for Senate, and then out of nowhere get raucous endorsements.

I haven't trolled the Senate. I've had disagreements, but I've also been more than willing to explain the reasoning behind it. I also didn't troll my own convention, you creep. I've put quite an effort into sustaining that party and if I don't have the time to rewrite an entire set of bylaws in a few hours, then I don't have the damn time. Sorry I don't postpone my entire life to rewrite bylaws for a fictional political party. I guess that makes me a troll.

Quote
There are moments when people need some time on the sidelines to reform and get back in the swing of things from the ground up after spending far too much time in the business, as it were. This is undeniably one of those times.

I disagree with this, so it's apparently not as undeniable as you may suggest. And I'd like to think the endorsements I have received (which I'm very grateful for) can back me up on that.

Quote
Napoleon doesn't deserve this,

You're right, I don't. Fezzy, Griffin, and Goldwater don't either. It's a game we play for fun. No one deserves anything, no one is entitled to anything, and if you actually think otherwise there is something way wrong with you and I'm not qualified to diagnose it. The only person who will deserve the seat is the person voted into it by the people who play this game. You don't deserve the presidency. Why shouldn't we just cancel the election and give it to Winfield? He deserves it.
 
Quote
and that people are endorsing him at all is perhaps more a testament to the presently decaying state of the Liberal Party and your lack of ability to find better candidates and the counter-productive attitude of certain posters who value bizarre personal loyalty above doing even a remotely good job.

The overwhelming majority of my endorsements aren't even from Liberals. Can you, for once, present your argument, as terrible as it may be, in an intellectually honest fashion?

Quote
Are we in an alternate universe or something?

Yeah, it's called Atlasia. We have regions instead of states, there's only three Justices on the Supreme Court, and our elections last seventy-two hours.

Quote
A couple months ago, people were despairing at the horrible, awful, terrible, no good, very bad job Napoleon was doing as President and how eager they were to move on. Are you people into self-harm, or something? This is Exhibit A of why we never solve any of Atlasia's problems.

And a couple months before that, I had extremely high approvals and got reelected with over 60% of the vote. Things change and fluctuate. Barnes had a 72% approval rating when he resigned. For no reason at all other than the fact that he was personable and non-controversial.

Yeah, the start of my second term got sidetracked. Hurricane Sandy struck. There was an election. The forum got shut down for days. The Senate stopped operating on a normal schedule. I had things come up in my personal life. Senators and Cabinet officials kept resigning or disappearing. Could I have handled some of it better? Certainly. Have I learned from my mistakes? I believe so. Should the voters trust me? That's up to them, but I've said what I hope to do in office, why I'm running, and what I have to offer.

For fairness. Now cancel the Atlasia campaigning stuff here. There's a whole damn board for that.


Title: Re: The Good Post Gallery
Post by: patrick1 on February 10, 2013, 12:44:47 pm
Only in America would people watch a sporting event...and not just accept that there are commercials in between...but even make a point of watching them.

Of the 174 total minutes in the game, 60 of them are dedicated to commercials.  Only 11 minutes, out of 174 total, were actual gameplay.

So, over a third of a football game is spent watching commercials.  Only 6% of a football game is spent watching football.

Which is a lot like life, I suppose.  You waste about a third of it sleeping, and about 6% really doing anything that makes the whole damn thing worthwhile.


Title: Re: The Good Post Gallery
Post by: Trounce-'em Theresa on February 10, 2013, 07:30:15 pm
Doctors do f[inks]uck up more than is polite to remember, of course. Human error is what it is, and there are some people in all fields who are frankly no good at their job.

But much of the problematic aspect to all of this isn't doctors so much as relatives. Which is an even less polite thought, I think.


Title: Re: The Good Post Gallery
Post by: Saturday's Cab Ride Home on February 12, 2013, 12:36:33 pm
A great retort to a deluge entry:

His base will simply freeload like they always do. Miss 32 year old power lawyer working 80 hours a week will pay for it.

Haha, well discouraging the behavior of being a lawyer will certainly be a positive side-effect!

However, don't feel too bad, krazen - all those 'freeloaders' will also be working 80 hours per week, cleaning up the garbage or frying chicken or something like that.  So, your 'everybody is miserable' goal will be more than fulfilled.


Title: Re: The Good Post Gallery
Post by: Saturday's Cab Ride Home on February 12, 2013, 12:46:28 pm
Inks actually gets a good one:

Phil, nothing of what I said was incorrect.  I have some serious problems with Catholic doctrine.  The opposition to birth control other than family planning is very legalistic, and that's not the point of Christianity.  Christianity is not a hard set list of dos and don'ts.  Yes, there are the 10 Commandments, but there are sins other than those, and the Catholic Church, like the Jewish leaders in Jesus's time have become too focused on strictly applying rules.

Some of the doctrines of the Church smack straight up of heresy, such as Papal infallibility.


Title: Re: The Good Post Gallery
Post by: Keystone Phil on February 12, 2013, 12:53:34 pm
Yes, a good (laugh) post indeed! Love Inks whining about institutions that are too worried about strictly applying rules. Can't make this stuff up.


Title: Re: The Good Post Gallery
Post by: Saturday's Cab Ride Home on February 12, 2013, 12:58:55 pm
Yes, a good (laugh) post indeed! Love Inks whining about institutions that are too worried about strictly applying rules. Can't make this stuff up.

Actually that's a good point, it's perhaps the first ever likely simultaneous entry in both the Good Post Gallery and the Irony Ore Mine.


Title: Re: The Good Post Gallery
Post by: Queen Mum Inks.LWC on February 12, 2013, 01:01:22 pm
Yes, a good (laugh) post indeed! Love Inks whining about institutions that are too worried about strictly applying rules. Can't make this stuff up.

I'm not whining about them strictly applying rules... It's not the strictness I mind; it's the fact that I think the rules themselves are wrong.


Title: Re: The Good Post Gallery
Post by: Saturday's Cab Ride Home on February 12, 2013, 01:06:06 pm
Yes, a good (laugh) post indeed! Love Inks whining about institutions that are too worried about strictly applying rules. Can't make this stuff up.

I'm not whining about them strictly applying rules... It's not the strictness I mind; it's the fact that I think the rules themselves are wrong.

But you have called for strict enforcement of laws that you have said you also think are wrong as well.


Title: Re: The Good Post Gallery
Post by: Keystone Phil on February 12, 2013, 01:06:55 pm
Yes, a good (laugh) post indeed! Love Inks whining about institutions that are too worried about strictly applying rules. Can't make this stuff up.

I'm not whining about them strictly applying rules... It's not the strictness I mind; it's the fact that I think the rules themselves are wrong.

Except you didn't say that; you said they're too focused on strictly applying rules.


Title: Re: The Good Post Gallery
Post by: Queen Mum Inks.LWC on February 12, 2013, 01:14:48 pm
Yes, a good (laugh) post indeed! Love Inks whining about institutions that are too worried about strictly applying rules. Can't make this stuff up.

I'm not whining about them strictly applying rules... It's not the strictness I mind; it's the fact that I think the rules themselves are wrong.

But you have called for strict enforcement of laws that you have said you also think are wrong as well.

No - I have never said I think we should enforce laws that are wrong.  I may think laws that should be changed should be enforced, but not a "wrong" law.


Title: Re: The Good Post Gallery
Post by: Queen Mum Inks.LWC on February 12, 2013, 01:15:54 pm
Yes, a good (laugh) post indeed! Love Inks whining about institutions that are too worried about strictly applying rules. Can't make this stuff up.

I'm not whining about them strictly applying rules... It's not the strictness I mind; it's the fact that I think the rules themselves are wrong.

Except you didn't say that; you said they're too focused on strictly applying rules.

Well then I'm clarifying what I meant by that.  My whole point earlier was that they're legalistic - enforcing rules that they themselves made up rather than principles of the Bible.  I'm pretty sure I said somewhere that Christianity isn't about a list of Dos and Don'ts.


Title: Re: The Good Post Gallery
Post by: Simfan34 on February 13, 2013, 12:28:41 am
I know I've said that I believe posts in the Gallery should be longer and well-thought, but I think this is a legitimate exception because of its sharp truth:

Since shale gas is largely replacing coal in electricity generation, it has been the cause of a net reduction in greenhouse gas emissions. I have little patience with idiotic pseudo-environmentalists who think we can all get to the Rock Candy Mountain of no fossil fuels just by wishing it were so.


Title: Re: The Good Post Gallery
Post by: Trounce-'em Theresa on February 14, 2013, 03:03:21 pm
Context:

Trying to piece together an objective truth from an unreliable narrator is a fool's errand. All we have from his universe is what he chooses to present. And that adds a critical level of depth to the narrative because you can determine things about the narrator as well. Omniscient storytelling is so much less interesting.


Title: Re: The Good Post Gallery
Post by: morgieb on February 14, 2013, 04:14:29 pm
Folks-

Sorry for being an attention hog- Wendy don't care about my politics so no one else at 1:30 in the morning would give my drivel any attention but you guys...

I don't know if this board and all of you have helped me reach this conclusion or not...maybe I'm returning to my 1964 self when I cast my first ballot for LBJ, a man all of us believed could continue to make our nation fairer and freer...or perhaps I'm getting soft in my old age. Or maybe it is simply a realization that I do not have that many votes left to cast so I better make them count...

I don't believe the Democrats have all the answers and not all of them have the right intentions- but I see largely a group of people who are committed to making America what the founders intended it to be... not the strict ideas of old men centuries ago, but a belief that America must constantly evolve and change and accept new people and ideas. I don't believe conservatives have ill will towards our country just as I never believed the Democrats did... but I see a fundamental difference in the way each party sees the weakest among us. Those of us who have had success need to raise them up...I benefited from the government doing that for me. I was a screw up when the Navy taught me the skills that led me to be very successful in my life- government did that for me... so why should I not want it to do the same for others?

I believe 2016 will be the last election I cast a ballot for...what do I want that vote to stand for? Where do I want to see my country go? From my party, I see folks committed to going backwards- back to the days when the old boys club ran the show and women and blacks were let in the room only to fetch drinks. I see folks committed to obstruction- whose hypocrisy knows no bounds, who will allow a Republican President any power in the name of national security but a Democratic President they see as a tyrant when he seeks the same powers. I see a party whose members jump at the chance to stand against the tides of history- maybe it's only because I've seen the civil rights movement that I can tell you that immigrants and gays will have their equal rights... and I don't want my last vote to delay the march towards equality that I fought for as a much younger man

My first vote was based on idealism... every vote since has been based on realism- the here and now of my personal finances, our pressing national security issues, you name it...I want to base my last vote on idealism and a belief in what we as Americans can achieve together. Therefore, I am going to the Supervisor's office tomorrow to switch my registration to the Democratic Party


Title: Re: The Good Post Gallery
Post by: Simfan34 on February 14, 2013, 07:24:55 pm
Why do young people oppose him so much?

As a young NJ resident I'd say that most people my age are not particularly informed when it comes to politics (no surprise there) and have trouble separating Chris Christie (R) from the Republican Party in general. They aren't really aware that that are notable differences between, say, Christie and Kelly Ayotte. The term moderate doesn't mean much to them; it's the R and the D that really matters. And they see the Republican Party as Bad, for a few reasons, but overwhelmingly imo because (1) the Reps generally oppose gay marriage, which has unfortunately become for many THE sole issue on which many of my generation judge candidates (and for that matter the only one they know anything about), and (2) because the Reps are often overtly religious, which doesn't play well to a demographic that is largely secular, doesn't really take religion seriously, and often treats it as something distasteful/an object of derision. There's also just the general, thoughtless liberalism that comes with being a college student/recent college graduate and getting most of your news from the Daily Show, Colbert, Slate, Salon, Gawker, etc.

To the comments above, I'd say that yes, gay marriage is a big aspect of the disapproval, but not because young people necessarily are aware of Christie's position on the issue (most of my friends aren't even aware of his veto), but just because he is a Republican, which to their mind means automatically anti gay marriage.

The irony is that many young people who have a kneejerk disapproval of Christie would support him if they actually were aware of his policies, stand on issues, etc. (and, maybe as or more important, the stance of the Jersey Democrats on the same issues).


Title: Re: The Good Post Gallery
Post by: Saturday's Cab Ride Home on February 14, 2013, 10:40:35 pm
What I want to know is what in God's name Benghazi has to do with Hagel or anything related to him. It's so transparently just the new excuse for whatever the Republicans don't feel like doing, at least in the bailiwick of foreign/defense policy. I can't recall a similar excuse that became so unbelievably irritating and craven so quickly at any time in recent history, though of course such things are inevitably subjective.


Title: Re: The Good Post Gallery
Post by: Badger on February 15, 2013, 08:59:42 pm
I've accordingly deleted my related posts as dreck.
While that's a good start - only 8196 more to go.

Ouch! Sulfer mine material there.....


Title: Re: The Good Post Gallery
Post by: Badger on February 15, 2013, 09:19:08 pm
Folks-

Sorry for being an attention hog- Wendy don't care about my politics so no one else at 1:30 in the morning would give my drivel any attention but you guys...

I don't know if this board and all of you have helped me reach this conclusion or not...maybe I'm returning to my 1964 self when I cast my first ballot for LBJ, a man all of us believed could continue to make our nation fairer and freer...or perhaps I'm getting soft in my old age. Or maybe it is simply a realization that I do not have that many votes left to cast so I better make them count...

I don't believe the Democrats have all the answers and not all of them have the right intentions- but I see largely a group of people who are committed to making America what the founders intended it to be... not the strict ideas of old men centuries ago, but a belief that America must constantly evolve and change and accept new people and ideas. I don't believe conservatives have ill will towards our country just as I never believed the Democrats did... but I see a fundamental difference in the way each party sees the weakest among us. Those of us who have had success need to raise them up...I benefited from the government doing that for me. I was a screw up when the Navy taught me the skills that led me to be very successful in my life- government did that for me... so why should I not want it to do the same for others?

I believe 2016 will be the last election I cast a ballot for...what do I want that vote to stand for? Where do I want to see my country go? From my party, I see folks committed to going backwards- back to the days when the old boys club ran the show and women and blacks were let in the room only to fetch drinks. I see folks committed to obstruction- whose hypocrisy knows no bounds, who will allow a Republican President any power in the name of national security but a Democratic President they see as a tyrant when he seeks the same powers. I see a party whose members jump at the chance to stand against the tides of history- maybe it's only because I've seen the civil rights movement that I can tell you that immigrants and gays will have their equal rights... and I don't want my last vote to delay the march towards equality that I fought for as a much younger man

My first vote was based on idealism... every vote since has been based on realism- the here and now of my personal finances, our pressing national security issues, you name it...I want to base my last vote on idealism and a belief in what we as Americans can achieve together. Therefore, I am going to the Supervisor's office tomorrow to switch my registration to the Democratic Party

May you cast many more ballots to come, regardless of party.


Title: Re: The Good Post Gallery
Post by: shua on February 16, 2013, 12:48:15 am
It's not particularly hard to find the 'roots' of Nazi antisemitism and you won't find it in either the Bible or On the Origin of Species. The ideology you're looking for is German nationalism and the term you're looking for specifically - though certainly not exclusively - is 'Völkisch'. Given how that term is pronounced I suppose that most native English speakers will probably find it difficult to take at all seriously as something extremely sinister and highly dangerous, but language can be deceptive and it certainly was. You should then be aware of the ubiquity of scientific racism in the late 19th and early 20th centuries and of the popularity of related things, such as eugenics (c.f. the movement for 'National Efficiency' in Britain, which was pretty much the guiding political principle of one H.H. Asquith - a prick, but not even close to being a Nazi). You can then look at the (very, very successful) attempts of many 19th century arseholes to transform popular anti-Jewish sentiment (which was always previously based on good old fashioned religious bigotry... or, perhaps more accurately, was always expressed in its language) into the new fangled craze known as 'antisemitism', a new product that it made it possible to hate Jewish people while also being a thoroughly and respectably modern member of the new industrial society. You can easily see, I'm sure, how all of this combined at the wackier end of the German nationalist political spectrum (and that was always a pretty fycking crazy political spectrum as political spectrums go) to produce something as excessively and insanely vile as the Nazi variety of antisemitism. You think these people were at all interested in theology, even popular theology? Don't be daft. Actual scientific theory (at a theoretical level) as opposed to popular science? Utterly absurd.


Title: Re: The Good Post Gallery
Post by: Trounce-'em Theresa on February 16, 2013, 02:02:21 am
It's not particularly hard to find the 'roots' of Nazi antisemitism and you won't find it in either the Bible or On the Origin of Species. The ideology you're looking for is German nationalism and the term you're looking for specifically - though certainly not exclusively - is 'Völkisch'. Given how that term is pronounced I suppose that most native English speakers will probably find it difficult to take at all seriously as something extremely sinister and highly dangerous, but language can be deceptive and it certainly was. You should then be aware of the ubiquity of scientific racism in the late 19th and early 20th centuries and of the popularity of related things, such as eugenics (c.f. the movement for 'National Efficiency' in Britain, which was pretty much the guiding political principle of one H.H. Asquith - a prick, but not even close to being a Nazi). You can then look at the (very, very successful) attempts of many 19th century arseholes to transform popular anti-Jewish sentiment (which was always previously based on good old fashioned religious bigotry... or, perhaps more accurately, was always expressed in its language) into the new fangled craze known as 'antisemitism', a new product that it made it possible to hate Jewish people while also being a thoroughly and respectably modern member of the new industrial society. You can easily see, I'm sure, how all of this combined at the wackier end of the German nationalist political spectrum (and that was always a pretty fycking crazy political spectrum as political spectrums go) to produce something as excessively and insanely vile as the Nazi variety of antisemitism. You think these people were at all interested in theology, even popular theology? Don't be daft. Actual scientific theory (at a theoretical level) as opposed to popular science? Utterly absurd.

Beat me to it.


Title: Re: The Good Post Gallery
Post by: opebo on February 18, 2013, 06:35:32 pm
Why in God's name would you pay someone $15 or $20/hour to flip burgers?

otherwise way too much of their labor is being stolen.
How exactly does burger flipping warrant anything close to $15/hour?

how does sitting on your ass warrant a stock dividend?


Title: Re: The Good Post Gallery
Post by: A Strange Reflection on February 19, 2013, 07:21:15 pm
Every single person here should be incredibly concerned about the growth of Facebook, it's integration into virtually all aspects of life, and how it provides a means for corporate interests -- or really, anyone with money to spend -- to track every public movement and thought of yours at all times.


Title: Re: The Good Post Gallery
Post by: Saturday's Cab Ride Home on February 19, 2013, 11:01:14 pm
This is what makes the Bushie story so intriguing.  When building all the details seem pretty boring and straightforward, but then the twist comes and we're left piecing together all those previous scenes actually meant and our mind is blown at how we missed it the first time.


Title: Re: The Good Post Gallery
Post by: shua on February 20, 2013, 01:20:08 am
(http://www.pictureshack.us/images/46457_output_n7m9uW.gif)


Title: Re: The Good Post Gallery
Post by: Napoleon on February 20, 2013, 03:45:29 am
particularly annoying talking points:

-"family values." the only people that say this are either ones too cowardly to come out and say what we all know they really mean or people that are so clueless that they totally miss what it's actually code for and instead think it sounds nice and fuzzy.

-"iran wants to wipe israel off the map." this has been debunked so many times, not to mention it makes no logical sense. why would iran want to fire a nuke at a country with hundreds of them that is unconditionally supported by the us. use your head.

-"you're a conspiracy theorist." this is never in reference to an actual conspiracy, just a response by idiots whenever you mention things like the fast and furious scandal. anything remotely critical of the government now is a conspiracy theory according to obamabots. it's like what happened to the word 'racist.'

-"lesser of 2 evils"

-"socialized medicine." this is not an argument.

-"the poor/48% pay no taxes." right because sales tax, payroll tax, cigarette taxes, gasoline tax, property tax, etc. don't count. this is so idiotic. to make it worse it's normally paired with something similarly inane and disingenuous like "everyone needs some skin in the game" to justify supporting tax hikes for poor people.

-"i support a strong defense."  because anyone that has a problem with the military budget constantly expanding regardless of our financial situation or need obviously wants a weak defense.

-"clinton reduced the debt." no president has reduced the debt in my lifetime, this isn't hard to google either. what happened was congress stole money from social security (as usual) and that resulted in the deficit going down a bit for awhile. and then they kept borrowing from it but still managed to run massive deficits under bush.

-speaking of which: "obama ended the iraq war." no, by the time he got in most of the people fighting in iraq were armed contractors. that's still the case, we still have a huge heavily armed military base there which isn't going away. the fact that the media reported the iraq war was ending twice should have tipped you off that something was not quite right.

-"reagan reduced spending/never gave amnesty/[insert ridiculous claim]."  

- "reagan conservative." he's totally irrelevant to most people now. a huge chunk of the electorate either wasn't born when he was in office or (in my case) were far too young to remember any of his presidency other than what we learned second-hand. the constant idolizing and insistence that you're a "reagan conservative!" in 2012 is embarrassing as far as I'm concerned. stop talking about how you want to to be an imitation of someone who was dead before I finished high school, and start proposing solutions to problems now. it's not like you see democrats talking about how they're "fdr progressives."

-"saved or created [insert] million jobs." if you want to argue for keynesian economics ok whatever, but please don't insult my intelligence.

-"white privilege." this is such an infuriating oversimplification. there's so much evidence pointing towards poor scotts irish actually having worse education and career prospects than minorities in this country for example. white people are not a monolithic group, there are definitely significant outcome differences for people based on other variables like class or ethnicity still.


Title: Re: The Good Post Gallery
Post by: LastVoter on February 21, 2013, 01:38:30 am
Defending Inks shouldn't be intractable but it is a warning sign for getting your mental status checked as soon as possible.


Title: Re: The Good Post Gallery
Post by: Lief 🐋 on February 22, 2013, 02:30:43 pm
 
Quote
Since my parents are helping me out, I could not turn my Dad down.

With a couple of exceptions maybe, nobody understands why it was essential for you to take money from your parents while you were employed in Utah. Nobody.

Well come on now, he moved across the country to take up a bare subsistence level job, and you think he wouldn't need money from the parents?  If he hadn't had money from the parents he would have been homeless and probably dead.  On the other hand, it was a bad idea to go anywhere or do anything, so they did facilitate that.

Bush, don't listen to these spoiled, hypocritical rich kids.  I understand your condition. 

Just sit tight at home, try not to worry too much.  Cultivate a good relationship with mom, dad and other old people in the community, and eventually someone will find you a job at, say the City Power and Light, or the telephone company (alas I hear the telephone company may have been destroyed, but something along those lines).  What you need is a community - a support network - to find you employment and keep you in it. 

Is there a prison anywhere near you where you could work?  Or any sort of government or regulated-public-utility that might have simple clerking jobs?  Do NOT, under any circumstances, seek employment with 'private' corporations - you are definitely better off sleeping all day in your parents basement.


Title: Re: The Good Post Gallery
Post by: opebo on February 22, 2013, 03:28:31 pm
The whole political compass/axis thing is a fraud propagated by libertarians.


Title: Re: The Good Post Gallery
Post by: Napoleon on February 23, 2013, 05:07:43 pm
The one that really pisses me off is when politicians claim that they want to run for office to "serve the people." Joe Sestak said some such nonsense a few days ago. He said he wanted to "serve again" and so he obviously has to run for Governor of Pennsylvania, the highest executive office in the commonwealth. If Sestak wanted to serve again he could read books to kindergarteners or help an old lady with yard work. Those are ways to "serve the people." But no, Sestak and other parasites use the word "service" to justify their lusts for power. The talking point that politicians actually want power to "serve" the people is total bullsh**t. Politicians want power to forward personal agendas and vendettas and to fulfill burning, Luciferian ambitions. 


Title: Re: The Good Post Gallery
Post by: A Strange Reflection on February 23, 2013, 08:54:07 pm
I'm just going to come out and say it without sugarcoating things. 

Cars are killing machines.  No matter how much you like them or find them indispensable, they just are.  They kill people, they kill cities, they kill the climate, they kill the millions of years of stored fossil energy we've been living high on for the past century (and may not be able to rely on much longer).

It is a matter of grave public importance that we make the automobile less popular, and less prevalent, and less necessary.  Our very civilization depends on it.


Title: Re: The Good Post Gallery
Post by: opebo on February 24, 2013, 06:22:06 am
These deficits are not perpetual, though.  They're only during times of economic distress.  If we planned on running a deficit for the next 100 years solid, then yeah, we'd probably be heading toward a default.

WHAT? We've been running a deficit virtually ever single year over the past half century! Our debt is over 100% of GDP now. Your attitude was fine in 1970-something, but we are way past that point.

I'm not talking about deficits in general.  I'm talking about deficits in excess of 5% of GDP, which is what you were complaining about.  The federal budget never needs to be balanced, but it does need periods where it is outpaced by growth of GDP.

Thank you for bringing up the 1970s.  1950s-70s we ran deficits virtually every year, but our debt declined because our GDP grew to the point where that debt was chump change.

You are correct that 5+% of GDP deficit perpetually will lead to default, because the GDP will never grow 5% perpetually, in fact it rarely does in a single year.  However, the federal government can run deficits infinitely if it keeps it around and below that threshold.  A deficit locked in at 2.5% of the GDP can last for an eternity without ever being balanced.  The nominal number that is the national debt can be $20, $50, $100 trillion dollars, as long as we have a GDP of $21, $51, $101 trillion.  We'll be okay.

Right now, we're about $1 trillion behind on nominal GDP with our nominal debt (15.6 to 16.6).  The debt is expected to grow to $18.4 trillion by the end of 2016.  If we grow our nominal GDP by 18% over the next four years, guess what? We'll be back in the green at 18.45 trillion GDP and thus a shrinking Debt-to-GDP ratio, and we won't have a debt problem.

Think that's impossible?  Our nominal GDP grew by 12% over the last four, during "economic malaise."  18% nominal growth over a four year period can be done, in fact it will be.  Now, after 2016 the debt will start rising at a ridiculous pace again, but we don't need to start slashing entire programs to fix that.  All we have to do is move things around to bring down below growth.

This is why it is not a myth but FACT that booms lower the debt.  The debt was shrinking by the early 90s, not just when the surpluses happened, and parts of the mid-1980s during the Reagan deficits because the Debt-GDP ratio was declining aka the REAL debt.  The surpluses just switched things into turbo drive.

And if we get some minor spending cuts done, such as to the military, it'll make the goal GDP even smaller.


Title: Re: The Good Post Gallery
Post by: Saturday's Cab Ride Home on February 25, 2013, 09:45:43 pm
Really the problem is that any standard for evaluating the merits of a policy could also be used as a standard for categorizing other standpoints. So just as we have a political compass that categorizes views according to their attitude to libertarian notions of "freedom" and "government intervention", you could have an egalitarian compass where views get boxed together based on whether they promote equality in different areas, a Catholic compass where being anti-abortion and pro-death penalty would get represented as applying contrary principles, and so on and so forth. What the most natural way is to categorize political views is itself a question of political theory; it doesn't stand outside on purely neutral ground.


Title: Re: The Good Post Gallery
Post by: True Federalist on February 26, 2013, 07:03:45 pm
Sorta surprised to be posting an opebo post here, but I think it belongs here.
Opebo.. you might check out the median income figures for both countries. That way, the numbers will not be skewed by the "massive" of wealth of the Tories of this world. :)

I never claimed it was a median nor a per capita income, Torie, so don't try to put up a straw man.  I observed that it is the income of the toiling masses at the bottom of society - who cannot save.

OK, but your definition, as you try to slither away here, puts the percentage of the "toiling masses" at about 10% of the US population maybe, and that is before they get their income tax credit, and food stamps, and the like. Most people don't use the term "masses" when referring to 10% of the whole.

My dear sir, we must always and ever consider the test case of any program or policy to be the most vulnerable!  It does no good to say 'well it isn't the majority who are starving to death'.


Title: Re: The Good Post Gallery
Post by: Napoleon on February 27, 2013, 01:51:29 am
Yeah, I experienced bullying too, and the only thing worse than taking it was having an adult step in. Kids need to have the balls to do what's right and stand up for each other. Standing by needs to be emphasized to kids as being just as bad as bullying itself. Kids need to be the answer. Teachers aren't around all the time to protect kids. And kids shouldn't feel like they need protection, they should be empowered and defended. I know it's hard for kids who are bullied and there's nothing you can do in a lot of situations, but I just don't think pity is a healthy way to help someone. Nor is being shielded by a larger display of force as their only line of defense. We empower the bullies by acknowledging that they have so much influence over their peers that no one but a person in a position of great power can stop them. I don't think that teaches them or the victims anything other than that bullies won't or don't have to stop if not for authority. It's not right or wrong that forces them to stop, just force. I do see your point, and teachers do definitely need to be more educated on, aware of, and proactive about it.


Title: Re: The Good Post Gallery
Post by: Grumpy Santa on February 27, 2013, 10:23:15 am
This "show" should be turned off. It's a disgrace that a such an immature, hopeless, and thoroughly sheltered individual should have a venue to trouble the world with his pathetic sob story. Stop clogging this forum with your pathetic excuses and recriminations about a life you have squandered. Change or not, we shouldn't care anymore. You got your chances, put up or sh**t up.


Title: Re: The Good Post Gallery
Post by: Paul Kemp on February 27, 2013, 11:41:39 am
I feel like Update has an interesting meta-story with regard to the reactions of the "audience".  Bushie himself hasn't really changed since the early days, but the audience's reactions have.

While folks here mocked Bushie's nonsense just as much in the early days, the tone has changed, and kind of gotten darker.  There's now an enhanced appreciation for how much he says is untrue, in a way that there wasn't early on.  And more recently, even while people are dispensing advice, they're simultaneously lamenting the fact that he's a lost cause, and that they're surely wasting their breath.  People are far more likely to dig the knife in with Bushie, noting that he's never going to change, and chastising him not just for being lazy and gullible, but for having a kind of parasitic relationship with his parents.

The tone has gotten much sharper ever since he announced that he was moving back in with his parents because his father told him to.  Bushie's also having a harder time directing the conversation where he wants it to go.  Other posters want to let him have it on his screwups well beyond the point at which he wants to redirect things to another topic, in a way that wasn't happening as much in the early seasons.

I'm not saying that these reactions are *undeserved*.  A man can't expect to post the same nonsense for years on end without getting this kind of backlash.  I just think it's interesting.



Title: Re: The Good Post Gallery
Post by: Snowstalker's Last Stand on February 27, 2013, 01:29:10 pm
They should lock the senators in a single room, and not let them out.
Corrected.


Title: Re: The Good Post Gallery
Post by: A Strange Reflection on February 27, 2013, 02:06:15 pm
This "show" should be turned off. It's a disgrace that a such an immature, hopeless, and thoroughly sheltered individual should have a venue to trouble the world with his pathetic sob story. Stop clogging this forum with your pathetic excuses and recriminations about a life you have squandered. Change or not, we shouldn't care anymore. You got your chances, put up or sh**t up.

I second this.


Title: Re: The Good Post Gallery
Post by: Lief 🐋 on February 27, 2013, 04:52:51 pm
It doesn't bother me if you don't want to have sex, but this whole thing smacks of judgment and ignorance. Sex isn't a cultural phenomenon, it's a basic human instinct. Shaming people for performing a pleasurable act they naturally enjoy is childish. As is making the decision at 21 or so that you know for a fact you have a distaste for sex. If you happen not to have enjoyed it, that's fine and I have no problem with that. When it turns to being framed as a life decision you seem to feel superior for making, I find that wildly offensive. But I don't think that's what it is either, polnut hit it on the head. And the difference is that I'm not trying to make you feel bad for it, it's a totally understandable position to be in. My suggestion is to just not go making grand proclamations when I guarantee you'll feel differently about it when you find a girl you really like or suffer a lapse in judgment and submit to a fling with a crush or whatever.


Title: Re: The Good Post Gallery
Post by: Snowstalker's Last Stand on February 28, 2013, 07:21:56 pm
she was 18 and 3 months at the time...video blows btw

Yeah, really shoddily done stuff. The camera angles are terrible, the editing doesn't make any sense (one minute she's naked, the next she's taking off her clothes), and she's a poor actress.

★★☆☆☆


Title: Re: The Good Post Gallery
Post by: Saturday's Cab Ride Home on March 01, 2013, 01:49:00 am
Jeff, answer me this... Does the plan contain any of the following words/phrases: Kenya, salesman, door-to-door, and then I go out and find 3 more people to sell the product, move, apply for a credit card, engagement, Maisha, unemployed, wait for a management position, or adoption?

If so, it's a bad plan.


Title: Re: The Good Post Gallery
Post by: Saturday's Cab Ride Home on March 02, 2013, 10:11:11 am
3. You don't need cable and Internet to live in a house.  Especially when you're talking about short-selling a house.  Bank fraud, Jeff... Bank fraud.  The idea of you getting approved for a short sale for this house is just disgusting.  I think you know you shouldn't be eligible, and your actions here are truly despicable.

What the hell?  You think someone shouldn't be approved for a short sale because they have internet and cable TV?  You have no connection to reality, man.  Just vengeful nonsense.  Poors can be poor and still have internet and cable TV - those things are very minor incidental expenses. 

If anyone is eligible for a short sale it is BushOK - he's destitute and unemployable.


Title: Re: The Good Post Gallery
Post by: opebo on March 03, 2013, 12:28:42 pm
...you know what the difference is between Jews and Baptists?  The Jews commit major fraud, and the Baptists commit petty fraud.


Title: Re: The Good Post Gallery
Post by: Saturday's Cab Ride Home on March 04, 2013, 12:58:11 pm
It's convenient to frame the world's problems as one group's fault.  Unions, corporations, Jews, welfare recipients, the UN, Satan, the Catholic Church, and genetically-modified foods are just some of the usual suspects.

Come on, that's just silly.  It is obvious that one group - the wealthy - are responsible for all the world's problems, because they clearly have all the power.  To blame 'unions' for anything is just bizarre, like blaming the janitor for a stock market crash.


Title: Re: The Good Post Gallery
Post by: morgieb on March 04, 2013, 05:22:14 pm
The whole thing comes out of a misguided rationalization for their having no abortion exceptions for rape. It is obviously a very unpopular position to say the government should force rape victims to have the babies of their rapists, so they justify by saying 'but rape babies dont really happen so dont worry about it'


Title: Re: The Good Post Gallery
Post by: A Strange Reflection on March 04, 2013, 06:56:09 pm
The whole thing comes out of a misguided rationalization for their having no abortion exceptions for rape. It is obviously a very unpopular position to say the government should force rape victims to have the babies of their rapists, so they justify by saying 'but rape babies dont really happen so dont worry about it'

I don't think these people actually understand truly how awful saying this stuff is. Their position is popular, at least, in the ultraconservative circles these anti-science nimrods run in. They see the media blowups over rape and write it off as liberal media nonsense.

"Of course we're anti-rape! Of course. It's just gotta be a legit rape, where a girl was forced in an alley at knife point and she almost died and the dude doing it was ugly or poor or black or unpopular."


Title: Re: The Good Post Gallery
Post by: Saturday's Cab Ride Home on March 05, 2013, 12:23:05 am
...I can't believe I'm quoting a Winfield post in here.

Matthew 16

13 When Jesus came into the coasts of Caesarea Philippi, he asked his disciples, saying, Whom do men say that I the Son of man am?

14 And they said, Some say that thou art John the Baptist: some, Elias; and others, Jeremias, or one of the prophets.

15 He saith unto them, But whom say ye that I am?

16 And Simon Peter answered and said, Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God.

17 And Jesus answered and said unto him, Blessed art thou, Simon Barjona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven.

18 And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it


What Jesus means by this rock is the rock of revelation, as it was by revelation that Peter says to Jesus, Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God, as Jesus says, for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven.  In other words, it was by revelation that Peter knew that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of the living God.

The Church of Christ is built on revelation, not on Peter.

Peter was an Apostle of Christ, not a Pope. 


Title: Re: The Good Post Gallery
Post by: Northam for Governor '17 on March 05, 2013, 05:52:19 pm
My, the replies do come in. Those who know of me will damn well know how I feel about him.

But first:

If you can't say anything nice in the minutes after someone's death, stfu. Seriously trashy. I'm not a Chavez fanboy by any strecth, but have some basic respect for human dignity.

Did you and yours do so when Jerry Falwell died, Hugh? Just wondering...

I would like to add, that to those here calling Chavez's opponents "trashy", there was a thread called "Were gonna have a party when Thatcher dies." I know for a fact that half of you would celebrate the death of Dick Cheney, who was just as evil during his time in office, if not more evil, than Chavez ever was. So please, get a little bit of consistency in your hypocritical minds.

Quoted for truth. But don't interfere with the usual liberal circle-jerk that goes on on this forum ::)

LOL. I've never heard of people killed by Chavez regime. It seems that the propaganda machine works well.

My, lefties take a seriously revisionist approach to the history of April 11, 2002, don't you?

Here's a hint: the Chavistas fired first.

Want my source for it, Hashemite? Perhaps you can come down off your pedestal and consider a point of view which isn't blindly pro-Chavez...

The (http://www.brianandrewnelson.com/Silence_home.htm) Silence (http://www.brianandrewnelson.com/RebuttalWilpertReview.html) and (http://www.amazon.com/The-Silence-Scorpion-Against-Venezuela/dp/B002UXRZGM) the (http://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/65856/brian-a-nelson/the-silence-and-the-scorpion-the-coup-against-ch%C3%A1vez-and-the-mak) Scorpion (http://www.barnesandnoble.com/w/silence-and-the-scorpion-brian-a-nelson/1101008135): The Coup Against Chavez and the Making of Modern Venezuela, by Brian A. Nelson. I've actually met the guy - he is not even remotely one of those 'American right-wingers' you liberals trot out when you're defending leftie tyrants. He actually was pro-Chavez when he began his research on the 2002 coup, but when he discovered the facts, well, not so much.

I don't expect to convince a single person, but I so despise the adulation of Chavez by the left that the hell with it, while I don't revel in a creature's death, I won't shed tears for the fall of a tyrant, either. You lot are so anti-American that you'll forgive anything for someone who OPPOSES THE EVIL AMERICANS!!! ::)


Title: Re: The Good Post Gallery
Post by: A Strange Reflection on March 05, 2013, 05:54:58 pm
Right. Imagine you are a minor, giving a presentation to a governmental legislative body full of respected adults on a matter very important to you. And you receive a remark that imparts that the legislator is just thinking he wants to be sexual with you. First of all, with one word it's a dismissal of whatever you've said as unimportant. Two, it's imparting that at that moment, they see you more as a sexual object than a human being. Three, it's their presumption that it's appropriate for them to let you know this (not sure which is more insulting; assuming that you'd be flattered by such a comment, or that it doesn't matter how you feel about it). Four, you know that a man much more powerful than you wants to have sex with you that you would never consent to, which can be intimidating. There's all kinds of layers of fycked up in that one little comment.


Title: Re: The Good Post Gallery
Post by: Averroës on March 05, 2013, 11:17:38 pm
Let's have some look at what Chavez has achieved for his country, based on hard data (http://data.worldbank.org/indicator/NY.GNP.PCAP.CD/countries/VE-UY-BR?display=graph):
  • Economically, Venezuela fared anything but badly over the last ten years. The Gross National Income per capita has almost tripled between 2003 and 2011 from 3,500 to 11,000 $ (Atlas method). However, other countries in the region, such as Brazil and Uruguay, have achieved the same (Brazil actually even did better), and, unlike Venezuela, they don't posess huge oil reserves. Rating: Slightly below average.
  • Poverty has been halved, from 62% to 31% of the population. Defenitely an achievement. But also not unique to Venezuela. Brazil and Uruguay, starting fron lower poverty levels, achieved similar reductions (Uruguay went down from 31% to 14%). And Peru, with a much weaker economic base than Venezuela, even cut down poverty from 60% to 28%. Rating: Slightly above average.
  • Unemployment has been brought down from nearly 17% to 7.6% in 2009 (last available data). While Uruguay has achieved the same, and Peru (albeit starting from lower unemployment levels) even reduced unemployment to 6.2%, Brazil only went down from 9.7% to 8.3%. Rating: Slightly above average.
  • Environment: Being an oil producer, CO2 emissions per capita have traditionally been high in Venezuela. They went down by 14% from 7.5 tons in 2003 to 6.5 tons in 2009, which is not bad at all. Nevertheless, per capita CO² emissions are still some 3-5 times as high as in Uruguay, Brazil or Peru, none of which, however, did reduce their emissions over the period in question. Looking for an appropriate benchmark, I came across Spain, which started out at the same emission level as Venezuela, but achieved slightly more reduction (from 7.6 to 6.3 t/ capita). China, OTOH, went up from 3.5 to 5-8 tons. Rating: Slightly above average.
  • Life expectancy has increased from 72.8 to 74.1 years, Not bad. But Peru, which started with 71.8 years life expectancy, has now the same rate as Venezuela. Brazil went up from 71.0 to 73.5 years. And the three of them are still far behind Uruguay at 76.2 years (up from 74.9). Rating: Slightly below average.
  • Reproductive health: While Venezuela's high maternal mortality rate has virtually remained unchanged at 94-92 deaths per 100,000 births, it went down from 90 to 67 in Peru, and from 67 to 57 in Brazil. Infant mortlity decreased from 1,7% to 1.3% in Venezuela, from 2.5% to 1.4% in Peru and Brazil, and from 1.3% to 0.9% in Uruguay. Rating: Below average.
  • Education:The UNESCO Education for All (EFA) Index (http://www.unesco.org/new/en/education/themes/leading-the-international-agenda/efareport/statistics/efa-development-index/) for Venezuela increased from 0.909 in 1999 to 0.951 in 2010, which is quite substantial, and has put Venezuela into the top group worldwide. My standard benchmark countries (Brazil, Uruguay, Peru) are unfortunately not covered by the EFA-index, so I have to switch benchmarks here: Ecuador improved from 0.913 to 0.924, Bolivia from 0.894 to 0.917, while Argentina has remained the South American top performer at 0.970 (up from 0.963). Rating: Above average.
  • Corruption: Since Transparency international's Corruption Perception Index (http://www.transparency.org/cpi2012/results) started to include Venezuela in 2005, the county has steadily steering further to the bottom of the list. Today, it stands out as the by far corruptest country on the subcontinent, with a TI score equalling that of Haiti and the Chad. Other countries in the region, such as Uruguay, which improved from a mediocre score of  51 in 2002 to 72 in 2012, have demonstrated that corruption can be contained in Latin America. Rating: Disastrous.

To summarise: Chavez has definitely not brought hardship over the Venzuelanan people. His government has been successful in cutting down poverty and unemployment, promoting education, and reducing greenhouse gas emissions. Economically, the country has performed well, albeit slightly below average when considering their oil reserves. In comparison to other South American countries, progress in the health sector has only been modest. While this is a decent track record, however, it is by far not exceptional in South America. People looking for models of socially balanced development  in Latin America might be well advised to also search for them elsewhere, e.g. in Brazil, Uruguay or Peru.

While I leave judgement on his human rights record to others, Chavez' record with respect to containing corruption is disastrous, which leaves more than just a stain on his "social reformer" image. He has left quite some unfinished tasks to his successors.

May he rest in peace.


Title: Re: The Good Post Gallery
Post by: Obamanation on March 06, 2013, 03:24:57 pm
probably because listening to dietitians, personal trainers, etc. would require some degree of humility and self restraint. someone as arrogant and overbearing as christie is obviously loathe to take orders from anyone. it's obviously not because he lacks the means or time to get in shape.


Title: Re: The Good Post Gallery
Post by: Trumpism: Turn the dial all the way up and pull off the knob on March 06, 2013, 04:00:52 pm
Few points I wanted to make. I've spent plenty of time in Memphis City Schools, which have plenty of "bad" kids.
1. There's not a strong correlation between bad behavior and bad test scores. A lot of bright kids cause problems and a lot of slow kids have learned to sit quietly. Although disruptive students make it difficult for students to learn, these are two largely unrelated issues.
2. In "bad" schools, kids who are performing "at grade level" are an extreme minority. Yet, there is intense pressure not to label kids as "special ed." Cause labels are bad. And racist ::) I have zero doubt that a majority of students at MCS would be labelled "special ed" at a wealthy school district.
3. In contrast, most students in bad schools are not very bad behavior problems. Only about 10% or so are chronically out of control. Unfortunately, they get the rest of the kids all riled up because everybody wants to see a confrontation between the badly behaved kids and the teacher. By far, the most common behavioral problem in ghetto schools is that kids haven't mastered the art of STFU.
4. I think people would be suprised how transient the "bad" kids are. In the midst of a given school year, about a quarter of kids in Memphis change schools.
5. Schools are the only "safe" good environment in many neighborhoods. Outside of school, you have a bunch of blight and crackheads. Maybe a couple of gas stations and fast food restaurants. And nobody has a solution for that.
6. Students physically being in school keeps them out of trouble. Crime peaks in the late afternoon and in summers when school lets out. And yes, correlation doesn't imply causation, but it's hard to rob people when you're physically stuck in school.
7. Separating the disruptive students is a double edged sword. The "regular" teacher would love it, but what do you do with the disruptive student? Standard practice has long been suspension, which is a such a bad idea. The kids would rather not be in school anyway. And having them on the streets is no good either. Some sort of behavior modification program would be nice, but I have my doubts about its effectiveness and the pricetag would be enormous.


Title: Re: The Good Post Gallery
Post by: fezzyfestoon on March 06, 2013, 06:32:44 pm
Good submission, Nix, Frankn's post is phenomenal.


Title: Re: The Good Post Gallery
Post by: Saturday's Cab Ride Home on March 06, 2013, 11:50:13 pm
I'm embarrassed that Democrats don't show up and help (besides Wyden).  

Where's your concern about civil liberties now?

Paul and Wyden's concerns are ridiculous. The rest are just there because they are hacks.

There is no situation where a federal government drone strike would be more efficient on U.S. soil than a police action to detain an American citizen suspected of terrorist activity.  This is also why the U.S. has no official policy on whether or not to use nuclear weapons on U.S. soil as a deterrent during a hostage situation.  It's a stupid thing to discuss.

There's the answer to Rand Paul's question.

During this filibuster Paul has stated numerous times he is not against using drone strikes against enemy combatants in foreign lands nor is even opposed to allowing police departments in the United States to use drones for surveillance.  His position is no different than the Obama Administration's official ruling on this issue.

He is filibustering for an answer to a dumb hypothetical question.

I support his correct use of the democratic process, but there's no reason to support him on the issue itself.


Title: Re: The Good Post Gallery
Post by: Northam for Governor '17 on March 07, 2013, 11:25:31 am
This is why left-wingers like myself are somewhat skeptical of right-wing critiques of Chavez's supposed corruption and disdain for democracy.

Have you ever lived or worked in a high-corruption environment? Where you can be stopped by the police just because they want some cash? Where you are harrassed by bureaucrats whenever you require some kind of document, be it a driving license, a birth certificate, renewal of your car registration, certification that your coffee-shop has adequate fire protection, whatever.? Where your final school exam score depends on how much your parents paid the the teacher? Where hospital doctors ask you for extra payment before they start to look at your sick child?
It is dehumilating - surely, not as dehumilating as being forced to beg for food - but still dehumilating.

And don't pretend that Venezuela is only supposedly high-corruption. Transparency International is anything but a right-wing propaganda organisation. Their rankings are pretty credible, and when they rank Venezuela equal to Haiti and the Chad, corruption there must be really bad. Ask yourself - how come the Venzuelan government's massive investment into the health sector has yielded such poor results ?  Maternal mortality has remained virtually unchanged at apalling high levels, while most other Latin American coutnries have made remarkable progress over the last years. You don't know the answer? Look above.


Title: Re: The Good Post Gallery
Post by: Lief 🐋 on March 08, 2013, 01:30:47 am
No concern.  The politics which surround the national debt will bankrupt this country long before the debt itself.

It's a big nominal number the party out of power always brings up (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3r_JyoUVWKg) to scare people for votes and it could hypothetically pose problems for us if tax revenues ever fell below the interest payment, but a payment that huge requires a ridiculous amount of debt which is virtually unachievable when you consider tax revenue is always inflating as well.

Debt is only a problem to entities which do not have their own currency or central bank.  Families cannot have massive debt.  Cities cannot have massive debt.  States cannot have massive debts.  Nations which foolishly ceded their right to currency to foreigners (Greece) cannot have massive debts.  The United States can have a debt five times this size and be fine.

Another flaw with the debt is that is a tally of debts owed but does not subtract debts held.  If the idea of China "calling our debt" isn't farcical enough for trade interests, the simple fact is we wouldn't even be in the red if our debt were called tomorrow.  The fine nations of the Europe, Africa, and South America continents owe this country far more than our debt to foreign lands, in a number which grows just as rapidly as every other nation holds budget deficits to stimulate economic growth in these trying times.

We are going to have to contract the money supply and subsequently the deficit eventually to avoid an inflation recession, but that's not a crisis or important looming decision.   It's a minor tuneup.  As long as we can bring ourselves to a point where nominal GDP growth outpaces the nominal growth of the debt, we can continue this process for the rest of our nation's history.


Title: Re: The Good Post Gallery
Post by: A Strange Reflection on March 09, 2013, 03:37:44 pm
Paul may be exaggerating (he probably is), but he's still raising a very important issue, that need to be discussed. Is the U.S. considered a "battlefield" in the war on terror and, if so, what is acceptable and what is not.

I said before I have no problem with the drone strikes on legitimate military targets. A terrorist leader is a walking command center and it doesn't matter what nationality he is. Sure it would be better to capture him and put on trial, but it's not always possible. In some situations, drone strike is less riskily not only for military personnel, but also innocent bystanders. I prefer the process being put under more restrictive rules, but I do not contest the idea. Neither does Paul, who said a dozens of times that individual attacking the U.S. should be dealt with accordingly, whether domestic or foreign. He has his doubts about drones, but admitted he can't make a definitive opinion yet. 

What I have problem is the thing getting out of control. I've never been a Paultard and everybody who knows me here can attest, but I agree with Rand and it's great this filibuster happened


Title: Re: The Good Post Gallery
Post by: dead0man on March 09, 2013, 05:45:51 pm
You know, opebo, not everyone here posts within a carefully crafted "schtick." Some of us, shockingly, genuinely post as who we are because we don't view the Atlas Forum as our fun little messing-with-other-people sandbox.


Title: Re: The Good Post Gallery
Post by: opebo on March 11, 2013, 03:37:20 pm
If they become more sensible they will come to recognize the failure of extreme positions. If they don't, then the Republican Party eventually becomes little more than the default for people who simply dissent with the incumbent Democrat or hold minority positions.

Disenfranchisement does not happen until the GOP gets all three branches of the Federal government and the majority of State Houses and governorships. Then they might put discriminatory clauses in electoral qualifications such as requirements that people own property or have at least five years' residency at the same place. Or they might establish 'classes' of electors, with some people being allowed to vote but whose votes are somehow rendered invalid. Or they might allow employers to direct how their employees vote.

The Republican Party cannot now win a majority nationwide with the agenda that it now has without some shenanigans.  Such include denying the vote or -- worse --  taking away meaningful choice by a voter. Remember -- even North Korea and Zimbabwe have the right to vote, but obviously voters have no meaningful choice.


Title: Re: The Good Post Gallery
Post by: Saturday's Cab Ride Home on March 11, 2013, 08:24:32 pm
It's really interesting. As long as the church could 1) write history, 2) define knowledge in the absence of technology (and that's the big one, and on which everything else hinged), and 3) wield secular power through kings and magistrates, it could enforce whatever ideology it chose. This is the Church's problem: it is now an artifact, in and of itself. It's going to struggle to make itself relevant and meaningful in societies that are not developing, that are already developed - because those developed societies derive their knowledge from other sources at this point. It's evolutionary, and it's to be expected. Ultimately, the fate of religion is to be an obscure, kind of esoteric sense of personal spirituality. Not a set of dogmatic instructions, insights, and decrees handed down from On High.


Title: Re: The Good Post Gallery
Post by: memphis on March 14, 2013, 12:26:30 am
What's up with the outrage about rational people speaking out against the irrational and inhumane views someone in a position of power holds? The new pope, the last one, and probably the next one, deserve to be criticized for their oppressive views on gays and their harmful views on contraception. He may care more about the poor than previous popes, which is great, but he manifests that by criticizing capitalism? Wealth creation should be encouraged along with redistribution to the needy. I don't really see what there is to like about him and why he should be shielded from criticism.


Title: Re: The Good Post Gallery
Post by: Platypus on March 14, 2013, 10:15:23 am
WMS: I don't think I've celebrated anyone's death in a giddy fashion, and if I have, I'd like to think it was a long time ago and I'm better than that now.

(thread was locked. Not hijacking, just clearing my reputation)


Title: Re: The Good Post Gallery
Post by: memphis on March 14, 2013, 12:01:20 pm
First of all, what is an ‘internet atheist?’ I mean, I’m sure people who say they don’t believe in god are probably non believers the rest of the time too. But I know what is meant by it, because we all know that type of person online. We’ve all met them and they generally are assholes. And that’s why atheists in general are horrible etc etc. Problem is, it seems to apply to any atheist or agnostic who simply states his position partly as a way to detract credibility. It’s okay for people who are religious to talk about their faith and their belief and evangelise but if we do it, it’s arrogant or boring or fanatic. None of us on this forum are telling you ‘you must not believe in god’; we’re just saying that we don’t. If you go on Facebook and your Christian friend can’t even go a single post without saying god makes them happy, god provides for them, they’re praying for you it’s met with general silence, but say that you don’t believe and make a post then ‘whoa buddy don’t be so fanatical about it.’

I lost my faith after years of intense and down right f-cking traumatic personal reflection when I emerged into the adult world and realised people like me in one way through faith didn’t like me and actively stood against me because of something else. I’m not an ‘internet atheist’ or a ‘New Atheist’ or whatever label is used. I reached my conclusion by myself through reading, through asking and even in the early stages through prayer. Most of you in this forum experienced that with me. I can argue my position respectfully and consistently and on this forum I discuss it on this board or in any post where politics and religion overlaps; I don’t shoehorn it in to everything I say. I find immense beauty in reality, awe in the position of our sun as essentially the closest ‘godlike’ object in our presence and I’m passionate about science and human progress. If that leads you to conclude ‘internet atheists lol’ then you know what, you’re the asshole.


Title: Re: The Good Post Gallery
Post by: A Strange Reflection on March 15, 2013, 03:34:52 am
Such cute revisionist fantasies.

The most "moderate" thing HW did was raise a gasoline tax.  Yeah, much further left wing than the oh I don't know, multiple tax raises undertaken by Mr. Conservative Hero Ronald Reagan.

HW's presidential re-election bid, where he addressed most everything with "targeted tax cuts", was hardly the definition of "moderate".  Neither was his bending over and having Pat Buchanan deliver his infamous "culture wars" speech at the RNC.


Title: Re: The Good Post Gallery
Post by: WMS on March 15, 2013, 11:49:18 am
WMS: I don't think I've celebrated anyone's death in a giddy fashion, and if I have, I'd like to think it was a long time ago and I'm better than that now.

(thread was locked. Not hijacking, just clearing my reputation)

Fair enough, t'was a hypocrisy test of not just you (you just happened to be the one who posted it), but also the Chavistas on there (who didn't respond :P ). Hypocrisy tends to really annoy me, but usually I don't bother posting about it. ^_^


Title: Re: The Good Post Gallery
Post by: Lief 🐋 on March 15, 2013, 12:09:02 pm
(this isn't in reply to the post above or anything; just a coincidence)

Hypocrisy is overrated as a vice. Some people are simply confused about what they believe in.


Title: Re: The Good Post Gallery
Post by: Grumpy Santa on March 15, 2013, 12:19:01 pm
I refuse to interest myself in who might be a 'sock' of whom - I mean who the hell cares about that?  We should take 'people' and posts at face value - if it is witty and amusing, it is gold.  If it is interesting, that's good too.  Who it 'is' doesn't interest me at all, and I can't imagine why it interests those tiresomes who make it their business to investigate such nonsense.


Title: Re: The Good Post Gallery
Post by: Come grasp the mighty avatar of our admin on March 15, 2013, 12:51:05 pm
Belongs here as well:

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

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


Title: Re: The Good Post Gallery
Post by: A Strange Reflection on March 15, 2013, 02:35:14 pm
True!


Title: Re: The Good Post Gallery
Post by: Saturday's Cab Ride Home on March 15, 2013, 08:11:26 pm
Typical lib attitude against our foundation. Sad.

What 'foundation'?  Slavery and killing Indians?  Your country is built on blood.  Its foundation is crime and deception.


Title: Re: The Good Post Gallery
Post by: shua on March 16, 2013, 02:26:53 pm
2. Frederick Douglass was a Republican liberal, and it was Republicans liberals who fought to end slavery and segregation.  If Terry knew the history, he would be a Democrat conservative, especially since he had a George Wallace button.

2. Frederick Douglass was a Republican, and it was Republicans who fought to end slavery and segregation.  If Terry knew the history, he would be a Democrat, especially since he had a George Wallace button.

Ever wondered why scumbag racists like Strom Thurmond and Jesse Helms switched parties? Liberals ended slavery, and southern conservatives happily fought against that... just like they opposed the Reconstruction amendments, women suffrage, segregation, and several more dubious social crusades that establishment Republicans pretend to have never happened.

We took the Deweys and Rockefellers of the world, you took the Thurmonds and the Wallaces and the Byrds.

That is one hell of an oversimplification justified on political grounds. ::)

There is such a thing as a Pro-Civil Rights Conservative, arguably both Bob Taft and Everett Dirksen could be counted as such. The reason such unsavory people (like those you mentioned, not implying Taft or Dirksen were unsavory by the location of this sentence) joined the GOP wasn't because it full throated embraced dixie, but instead because it was the "lesser of two evils", as the party more inclined to advance a conservative ideal set, as opposed to the Democratic party, which was being pulled more and more to the left. A process that the GOP leadership encouraged through the use of specific and select issues that could just as easily by motivated by legitimate ideological views as they could by being a racist hater (the so-called "Southern Strategy"), which was adopted as a means to break out from its two region imprisonment and gain access into the SE and SW, both of which were more fertile ground for a conservative poltical party, then a party isolated in two regions dominated by unions, liberal ethnics and so forth.

The reason the GOP was more inclined to a conservative mindset in the 1960's, wasn't because of a hijacking but instead because of conservative influences in the Northeast (shocking as it may seem now, there were such bastions at the time. For many, Abolition and Prohibition were espoused by fervent Protestants wanting to export their beliefs to other people as means to "civilize them". Sound familiar?) and Midwest. Exemplified by the fact that as far back as Alexander Hamilton's (who gets counted as a Conservative and legitimately so) and John Adam's (another obvious conservative) Federalist Party, the party opposed to the Democrats (or Jefferson's party before them) had a conservative element of some form. That would include Lincoln's opposition to Popular Sovereignty on the basis of the promised freedoms being universal and thus untouchable to a transient majority opinion in a particular locale, which sounds a lot like the conservative view that the popular majority isn't always acceptable and should be checked by institutions (like constitutionally guarranteed and promised freedoms for one, or even just institutionalized precedents regarding such and those did exist at the time. They were ignored by the Supreme Court at the time which violated the Constitution, prior precedent and the Seperation of Powers to hand down Dred Scott. Sounds like a conservative complaint to me. Thanks to Mecha for finding the full Curtis dissent, I would recommend it to a friend).

Oh, but conservatism in the GOP came about because a bunch of racist Southerners hijacked the party in the 1960's, like that Ohioan name William McKinely in 1896 or that Ohioan Warren Harding in 1920 or that Massachusetts man Calvin Coolidge, who won not a single Southern state amongst them (save for TN in 1920 of course). There is something wrong with this statement, which should be obvious to anyone with objectivity, and that is basically a symbolic represenation of what you are saying. The notion that the party's just switched is one of the most blatant and stupid misrepresentations of history and is about as unnacceptable as blaming the Democrats of today for what Jackson and the boys did in 1830. Though, if I had to find a way to connect such to those unfortunate events of the past to the Democratic party of today, it wouldn't be based on nominal affiliations of a rotting corpse wearing a gray uniform (the oldiesfreak approach), but instead based on the designs regarding the critical institutions of our system and the long term risks from removing them. It would be more accurate to say that two parties with ideological diversity, subsequently went through a period of ideological polarization and thus resulted in a political realignment based on "current regional demographics", which in many cases had changed considerably over the decades. I am shocked, SHOCKED to find Irish in Massachusetts. ;)

Conservatism in the Republican party wasn't the result of a hijacking, stupidity, that is a different story.

In fairness, I have simplified here as well, but the reason wasn't to misrepresent. It was to avoid a tl;dr post and to save hours that I don't have today. If anyone disagrees with what I said, I will be happy to defend anything posted here.


Title: Re: The Good Post Gallery
Post by: Averroës on March 18, 2013, 09:16:55 am
A couple from our discussion of the 2013 papal conclave:

Now talking about the pick...

1- The Vaticanists will be kicking themselves once again for totally missing Bergoglio. In 2005 he was a footnote, and went on to be the strongest alternative to Ratzinger. It is said that he asked his colleagues to stop voting for him, but maybe he just did that to allow a quick resolution for the conclave, as Benedict XVI's election was basically inevitable. This time, he was said to be a kingmaker, but in the end he became the king himself...

2 While most Vaticanists missed Bergoglio, one part-time Vaticanist, part-time political pundit from Brazil called Geraon Camarotti called it right. He said the Brazililian Cardinals not named Scherer would NOT vote for Scherer - Braz de Aviz and Damasceno specially disliked him. They wanted a "Latin-american alternative" to Scherer, and they were not alone. According to Camarotti, the candidacy of Bergoglio was built by Cardinal Maradiaga, a papabile himself. In the end the kingmaker became the Pope, and the papabile was the kingmaker.

3- I believe the winning coalition was composed by Latin-american Cardinals first, who probably united with African and Asian Cardinals. That would have delivered some 30-40 votes to Francis off the bat. From then on, he must have gained support from the American delegation at first, as they saw the opening for a Pan-american Pope. Then the less conservative faction of the Curia and from the European Cardinals (led by Schönborn and probably Bertone) stepped in and put him over the top.

4- The choice of "Francis" was a shock, as many felt the name of St. Francis of Assissi was "too holly" to be brought back by a Pope. But it definitely fits him, as he fits the legacy of St. Francis of Assissi and of St. Francis Xavier quite well.

5- He's not only the first jesuit Pope ever, he's also the first Pope from a religious order in three centuries. That is something that has to be noted.

6- His Pontificate will probably not be that long, and he definitely knows that. He seems to be extremely humble, to a point that may bother some Cardinals and curialists. But he does seem to be the kind of Pope that could start big changes, like John XXIII. The fact that he prayed Lord's Prayer and Ave Maria with the pilgrims in Italian before praying Urbi et Orbi tells a lot. The fact that he stood in silence to let the Catholics pray for him was very telling as well.

7- I'm predicting a John XXIII-styled papacy. Quite short (it'd be a blessing if he goes strong beyond 10 years), but bringing lots of change. Maybe going totally bold and calling Council Vatican III, maybe doing what should have done long ago, implementing collegiality as recomended by Council Vatican II - empowering the College of Cardinals and the Curia to decide some matters that today are left exclusively to the Pope; giving Bishops and Archbishops more power in their territorry. He could also diminish the Curia.

9- It'll be important to see how many curialists will be brought back to their old jobs by Pope Francis - many changes would signal the need for a big cleanup. Also important will be his first Cardinal-creating consistory, which will be very telling. He'll probably create some 15 new Cardinals around early-mid 2014, and I expect him to create many Cardinals from the Third World, reducing the weight of the European and specially of the Italian delegation. I also feel less second-tier curialists will become Cardinals (something Benedict XVI used to do).

10- I'm loving Pope Francis. I think he'll do a great job. He has my prayers.

To me, this Papal election was about three options:

1.) Institutional reform, first of all with respect to the Vatican Bank's governance, and - in a broader sense - the Curia's general management style & system in relation to various scandals. This could have also included a review of priests' celibacy, acknowledging that forbidding marriage increases the risk of priests having non-heterosexual preferences. This option was, among others, preferred by German Cardinals, and probably also quite popular in the North American delegation. Would require a younger, energetic Pope (e.g. Schönborn) to see it through.

2.) Inclusion / outreach: A (mildly) politicised church, sensitised towards poverty, especially in the Third World, advocating peaceful conflict resolution, searching inter-confessional dialogue, etc.  For obvious reasons preferred by many non-Europeans.

3.) Status quo (when considering that Benedict has already acted to some extent in the inclusion / outreach direction, you might even label it 'reaction'): Business as usual for the Curia, under European, preferably Italian leadership. Maybe I am unjust to the man (whom I know little about), but for me Scola signified this option.

The chosen option, namely inclusion / outreach, is obvious. That is first of all positive, because it means that advocates of status quo did not have a majority.

On the other hand, looking at Franciscus,  I wonder how much of institutional reform he will be able and willing to push through. That he was elected so quickly makes me suspect that the status quo faction decided to better give in to the "non-Europeans" than to risk that a real reformer gets elected.  It also sets a nice precedent for Scola - contender gives in, a Pope in his late 70s is elected, dies (or steps down) after a few years, and then it is that contender's turn.

in any case, Franciscus deserves to be given at least the first one hundred days in office before any assessment of his policies is made. A crucial issue will be, whether he maintains Bertone as Secretary, or selects a credible "institutional reformer" cum manager for this position. Only then we will be able to see, whether his election is actually a sign for reform, or just serves as cover-up for continuing business as usual.


Title: Re: The Good Post Gallery
Post by: Trounce-'em Theresa on March 18, 2013, 02:00:52 pm
Dumping on Shakespeare should not be protected by the First Amendment. I consider that akin to treason - worse because it disrespects the English language (which he more than anyone else in its modern form gave birth to), rather than a mere political entity.


Title: Re: The Good Post Gallery
Post by: A Strange Reflection on March 18, 2013, 11:04:52 pm
A couple from our discussion of the 2013 papal conclave:

[snip]

These were very interesting reads indeed.

I'll add this one:

It's backed by a pretty authoritative Argentine journalist though.

I hope you are not talking about Horacio Verbitsky, because calling him an authoritative journalist is pretty hilarious.
He's a Kirchnerist hack who regularly ignores corruption of the people he agrees with and completely destroys the people he disagrees with. And while a lot of his investigations during the Menem government were good, during the next decade he started to resort to baseless accusations as a regular modus operandi.

Plus he was a terrorist, so excuse me if I take the things he writes about with skepticism. And Antonio knows that I'm not exactly a right winger, so my opposition to him has nothing to do with his ideology, but more to the fact that he is a scumbag.


Also, several people involved in human rights causes (people who investigated and tried the last military junta, for example) have defended him. His only criticism might be that "he didn't do enough" which is something easy to say decades after the fact.


By the way, the election of Francis had quite some hilarious consequences around here. Since Bergoglio has been a longtime opponent of the Kirchners a lot of their allies went to the media the minute he was elected to destroy him and propagate the Verbitsky story (Kirchnerist "piquetero" Luis D'Elia for instance, wrote a tweet that basically says that Pope Francis was appointed by the imperialist United States to fight against the great South American revolutionaries, similar to what they did when they chose John Paul II to fight against the Soviet Union. I don't know if it's more hilarious the fact that he thinks Obama appoints the pope or something like that or the apparent feeling in the tweet that influencing people against the Soviet Union in a peaceful manner was bad :P)

But a large number of die-hard kirchnerist went the opposite way and pondered him like he was Jesus Christ himself calling the story bullcrap.
So, not only they are bipolar on this issue but considering that Cristina met with the Pope today and they were acting like buddies, it appears a lot of Kirchnerists were left hanging in the wind, and frankly, anything that puts the Kirchnerists into disarray (no matter how small or dumb the issue might be) is a good thing in my book.

Also beware of some of the pictures circulating around the web that apparently show Bergoglio with Videla. At least a few of them were "Fakes" (in the sense that it wasn't Bergoglio in the picture but some other guy).


I'm an atheist and I was very much opposed to the role Bergoglio had in the whole Gay marriage affair, but everyone I talked to in the past few days that has even a remote connection with the church or with him have told me he is a great person. So, I'm optimistic he will do good things for the people on issues like poverty, though unfortunately I don't expect much to really change with the church itself, but I hope I'm wrong.


Of course I'm not saying all these accusations are necessarily untrue. it's just that I question  the source and until we are presented with actual evidence of this, he should be considered an innocent man in this regard. Also, considering that the kirchnerists are all too happy to prosecute anyone, even though they might have had only an indirect relationship with the junta, I'm guessing that if there were factual evidence of crimes committed by bergoglio, the government would have tried to prosecute Bergoglio years ago.

Don't know why I bother since most of what I posted apparently is in Wikipedia too :P but in any case, I should say as a fellow fan of the San Lorenzo de Almagro Football club that even though we don't have any international cups, we have a Pope ;D (and Viggo Mortensen :P)


Title: Re: The Good Post Gallery
Post by: Saturday's Cab Ride Home on March 19, 2013, 01:37:41 pm
A big reason Shakespeare comes across as boring is that it has often been performed so boringly.

I think very few people can understand the language today.  Its rather like listening to people from the North of England talking - you get some very rough idea what is going on, but it isn't fun after about five minutes.
^^^^^^^
Biggest waste of high school. And that says a lot. He gets crazy respect because he's old.  The iambic pentameter is an impressive feat, but it's also a pretty stupid literary device that I find very distracting. It's like somebody is dribbling a basketball during every play. His storytelling isn't all that imaginative. He took a lot of ideas from others, as the idea of plagiarism wasn't yet a thing.  


Title: Re: The Good Post Gallery
Post by: Trounce-'em Theresa on March 19, 2013, 03:11:44 pm
A big reason Shakespeare comes across as boring is that it has often been performed so boringly.

I think very few people can understand the language today.  Its rather like listening to people from the North of England talking - you get some very rough idea what is going on, but it isn't fun after about five minutes.
^^^^^^^
Biggest waste of high school. And that says a lot. He gets crazy respect because he's old.  The iambic pentameter is an impressive feat, but it's also a pretty stupid literary device that I find very distracting. It's like somebody is dribbling a basketball during every play. His storytelling isn't all that imaginative. He took a lot of ideas from others, as the idea of plagiarism wasn't yet a thing.  

That's an amazingly terrible post, even by memphis's high standards.


Title: Re: The Good Post Gallery
Post by: Trounce-'em Theresa on March 19, 2013, 11:34:06 pm
Really not wanting to get into these same arguments but I'll bite.  If you are looking for a foil here, I'll stand up and be counted.   I support Sinn Fein and aims the Republican movement stretching back to before most of our posters were born. I'd still support the cause of a non sectarian united Irish Republic today. It goes without saying that many of the actions from people on all sides of the conflict were appalling. It is also a 1000% improvement that  the stakeholders have put down the gun and moved forward to peace.

Yes, and those were the actions that people who thought it was badass to donate to NORAID were funding.

From one perspective, you had a blatantly sectarian government and police force, an occupying army that clearly picked their side in the conflict and a failed civil right movement that was quelled with violence.

The local communities were burning people out of their homes

From the other side, you had the fear that they were going to have all their rights, history and and lives taken from them.  All sides descended into violence and felt that violence was the only answer.  These parties were funded and supported monetarily and organizational on both sides of the Atlantic.

You may have had some Americans buying guns under false pretense but you cannot overlook that the British government was supplying intelligence and weapons to loyalist hit squads.  Or that apartheid S. Africa supplied the loyalists while Qaddafi supplied the IRA.

It was an ugly conflict that really shouldn't be brought down to a petty talking point.

I may have posted this years back but here is a video with interviews from both side of prisoners of HMS Maze. I think it captures their motivations well.
 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u-g5Rad_MKA


Title: Re: The Good Post Gallery
Post by: opebo on March 21, 2013, 01:25:12 pm
Moving to the center on social issues won't help the GOP. It'll just send their white working class voters into the hands of the Democrats, who actually would do a better job representing them anyway, at least on pocketbook issues. If the Republicans want to make themselves electable and make inroads with minorities, they don't need to move to the left on social issues. Rather, they need to stop being the elected patrons of plutocratic privilege.

Of course that will never happen. The Republicans have been in plutocracy's grip since 1876, and every time they nominate a reformer (T.R., Ike) they ultimately get outmaneuvered by the bone-headed business elites that want to drag the country back into the Gilded Age. If by some miracle the GOP could move to the center on economics, or even the center-left, they'd have a good shot at rebuilding themselves as a mass party, conservative social positions or not.

Correct, and this, coupled with the possibility that the Democratic party could someday move left due to the browns makes me anticipate some form of (further) anti-democratic alteration of the State - as our own pbrower has often predicted.

I'd say that's more likely than most people assume. The wealthy aren't just going to allow the Democrats to waltz in and start redistributing their piles of cash. We're already seeing the champions of cheap labor mobilize to deny the poor the vote again in the South and the periphery regions they control by implementing Voter ID and trying to change the rules that govern the electoral college to make it even less representative than it already is.

That, and they already own the courts. That much is obvious. The United States Constitution is the greatest ally the plutocrats have, as it breaks up and divides power without democratizing it. And they own the media and the universities, contrary to conservative ballyhooing about the "left" owning the media and the academy.

There are a lot of ways that the plutocrats can conspire to limit the impending Democratic majority. They've already gerrymandered the House to be their's for at least until 2020. They're deliberately sabotaging the economy in hopes of taking the Senate in 2014. Should they gain control of the White House in 2016, they'll be ripe to prevent that Democratic majority from ever emerging by passing such awful things like a national right-to-work bill, national voter ID, means-testing everything, and expanding the influence of globalization in the American economy.

tl;dr -  Don't get cocky, Democrats. Even with the public scared sh**tless at the moment by the GOP doesn't mean that the GOP will become completely unelectable and unable to win, even while remaining on the far-right. They'll just do as they always have - change the rules to continue the domination of American society by a plutocratic elite.


Title: Re: The Good Post Gallery
Post by: Scott on March 21, 2013, 02:54:06 pm
Ah, defending the liberty of the businesses exploiting their employees and the liberty of oppressing minorities and poor people.

I suppose this isn't the place to argue this, but you need to put more faith in the markets, my friend.

Right, so the top 10% of Americans can control 100% of the wealth as opposed to the 80% they control now.

Government and political structure has a lot more to do with the wealthy having so much money than the markets do. Absent bailouts, insider deals, subsidies, etc the people would have a lot more power. Adam Smith knew what he was talking about. Are you sure you're a libertarian?

I'm 100% sure I'm not a Libertarian and I'm wearing the avatar for ornamental purposes.

What you fail to realize is that long before Government was the "big, evil, awful" thing that Libertarians view it as, markets were making people richer than would ever be necessary. Tell me, how would the free market resolve wealth inequality? The answer is, it doesn't.

Libertarians like to believe that the free market is the answer to all of America's (and the world's) problems, when in fact it caused most of those problems in the first place. It was the free market that created wealth inequality, and encouraged/encourages it in modern society. The first "rich" people--the ones that made more money than others when America was first becoming an industrial nation--did not hold that much more wealth than say the "poorer" Americans. What happened was, the industrialization expanded and corporations were born.

Corporations exist to ensure that a sort of oligarchical system be upheld throughout the monetary system. Meaning, the CEOs of the biggest companies are ensured a lot more money than the lower classes (about 350-400 times as much money, to be exact) for doing quantities less work. They deliver a cheap, but "okay enough" product onto the market, and consumerism ensures that it is eaten up without questioning exactly what it is or how it was made.

The problem is that such a small amount of people control such a disturbingly large portion of the wealth in this country (and world) and will only end up controlling more. Is Government doing anything to stop it? Not really, and certainly not as much as we should be doing. But that's because corporations have the power of Government. We need leaders that will not be afraid to stand up to corporations and strip them of their power. The voice needs to be returned to the average citizen, and the wealth with it.

I'm not talking about full-fledged socialism, I'm talking about equality. Where the poor aren't as poor and the rich aren't as rich. No one in this world could possibly need a billion dollars for their own use. They just invest it so they can make more money that they won't spend.


Title: Re: The Good Post Gallery
Post by: Trounce-'em Theresa on March 21, 2013, 06:29:41 pm
No. If anything, the American public needs to dress more like the president. Enough with the golf shirts at work and the sweatpants on airplanes.

I'd also like to see:
1. More variety of shirts and neckties. Why does a politician's shirt/tie have to always match the national colors? No other country does that.
2. Morning dress at inauguration and other major events like SOTU. Reagan was the last president to break out the waistcoat and tails.
3. More homages to regional dress. We don't really have a "national costume" like non-western nations. But it would be nice for, say, a congressman representing a large number of Native Americans to occasionally incorporate elements of traditional dress; or someone from Miami could wear a guayabera every now and then.

3. could potentially come across as appropriative in some instances, but is on principle a very good idea, and I strongly agree with the post as a whole.


Title: Re: The Good Post Gallery
Post by: Northam for Governor '17 on March 23, 2013, 04:09:25 pm
To say that oil and gas extraction is the best thing about the planet--which provides, in addition to 'one of the foundations of modern society' (which, in its present incarnation, is so wonderful--why, exactly? This is one of those things we often see asserted and seldom actually argued for coherently. Conservatives didn't used to be pat modernists, or at least weren't so insufferably triumphalist and smug about it), all of our food, all of our water, all of our air, all or nearly all of our mineral wealth including but not limited to oil and gas, all of our physical living space and nearly all of the conditions of our physical existence and sense of place and rootedness and embodiment (things about which conservatives have traditionally cared very strongly), and directly or indirectly the majority of the inspiration for our literature and music and art--is, in addition to being incredibly crass and frankly insane, in fact downright dangerous. You, of course, don't care, you rebarbative futurista worm, whether out of ignorance, malice, or both I have quite given up trying to ascertain.

This is a rather odd run on sentence, but in any case, much of Nathan's food, Nathan's water, Nathan's mineral wealth and Nathan's physical living space is of course partially dependent on oil and gas. This is especially true given that Nathan grew up in privilege and wealth not available to most of the world's population.

It's not a run-on sentence, you blithering moron. It's a very long and complex one. There is actually a difference for people who have a reasonably advanced understanding of how English works. Do you want me to make you a syntax tree? While we're on the subject of your education level, what kind of knuckle-dragging troglodyte thinks that access to oil and gas precedes access to food, water, other kinds of mineral wealth, and physical environment, or is more important to the sustenance of human societies? Or, if you'd prefer, what kind of dishonest, amoral POS pretends to think that in a valiant but failed attempt to score debating points? For that matter, how dare you pretend to give a flying [Inks] about privilege? Your own politics are almost literally fascistic. You're exactly the kind of 'conservative' George P. Grant was trying to warn us about. I think I'm beginning to see why you hate teachers so much. Yours certainly didn't do you many favors.


Title: Re: The Good Post Gallery
Post by: Scott on March 23, 2013, 04:51:18 pm
Mikado, I don't think rationalism seeks to crush or negate the importance of human emotions. I think the need for rational thought is perfectly compatible with acknowledging that the human mind is much more complex than what science can describe of it. And I consider myself a hardcore rationalist.

That's just it, though.  The very desire to know or understand the Universe is a fool's errand, especially if you reject the metaphysical and the philosophical to myopically focus on the physical Universe around you.  It's not just the human mind, talking about stars as hydrogen slowly fusing into helium producing a nuclear fusion reaction that generates massive amount of energy may be true for one value of truth, but sealing that as the only definition and ridiculing others for solar worship or the view that the sun is Helios pulled by a chariot is narrowminded in the extreme.    The Rationalist viewpoint tries to freeze out all approaches to truth that don't revolve around the Scientific method as not legitimate avenues to truth: in the same vein as Christianity, it is the ultimate in small-mindedness to say that one approach is right and the others are empirically wrong and prima facie absurdities. 

I have no problem with science itself, I have no qualm with it as one approach to knowledge, my problem is the outright rejection of the irrational and, in fact, turning irrationality into a derogatory term.  Many of the most valuable parts of human experience and the universe in general are inherently irrational, chaotic, unorderly, and downright messy.  Rationalism deprecates old wisdom and proclaims the value of new "knowledge," and attempts to see further and further into the tiniest particles, the most distant corners of the Universe, the creases of the human brain, and the most deep depths of the Earth's core, but loses the knowledge of the human spirit, the soul, in the process, and ridicules what it can't understand, abuses the "irrational."

Irrationality is freedom.  Freedom from the formalized structure of the scientific method, freedom from the hypocrisy of scientists who proclaim that they are working to better mankind while they perfect weapons with which to better kill vast swathes of mankind, freedom from the arrogant idea that the old gods of yore, whether they be named Zeus or Thor or Jesus, will be replaced by a new pantheon of Newton, Tesla, and Einstein. 


Title: Re: The Good Post Gallery
Post by: Napoleon on March 23, 2013, 09:59:19 pm
I agree with opebo.  In the end, this is just prudery.  America is so immature when it comes to sex it's unbelievable.  

How is it "prudery" to say that you don't want to pay for other people's sex classes?  Will you send me a check to pay for part of an oral sex class?  How does $5 sound?  That's not too much.... I'm sure you can afford it.

We publicly fund all sorts of education!  This is a public institution.  Sex Week certainly sounds like it would be more useful and productive than a lot of the other classes that your tax dollars pay for.  This would probably be a lot of fun, too!  Nonetheless, a few prudes get skirmish about it and there's no way it can be done.  Because, you know, a lot of people don't approve of sex... which is inherently pretty stupid. 


Title: Re: The Good Post Gallery
Post by: traininthedistance on March 25, 2013, 09:23:41 pm
Why attack Ben? We should welcome him.


Title: Re: The Good Post Gallery
Post by: A Strange Reflection on March 26, 2013, 09:34:48 pm
It is also factually inaccurate depiction of the history. It is ironic that Inks bemoans us applying modern biases onto the Dred Scott decision, when in reality that is exactly what the Supreme Court was doing in 1857, applying the biases of Southern polticians from that 1850's onto the 1780's.

Quote
5. When the Constitution was adopted, they were not regarded in any of the States as members of the community which constituted the State, and were not numbered among its "people or citizens." Consequently, the special rights and immunities guarantied to citizens do not apply to them. And not being "citizens" within the meaning of the Constitution, they are not entitled to sue in that character in a court of the United States, and the Circuit Court has not jurisdiction in such a suit.

This is factually innaccurate as they were in fact treated as such in Massachusetts stemming from the 1780 Constitution and subsequent interprations by the State Supreme Judicial Court in the years following its adoption. These were prior to 1787. There were other examples as well, that Justice Curtis points to in his dissent, but MA is the best case study in my opinion.

One has to remember that the extent of the racism at play grew over time. In Jefferson's time, slavery was considered as an evil that was dying of its own accord. In the 1820's, it was a consideed a "necessary evil", thanks to the growth of cotton after invention of the Cotton Gin. Around this time period, you had a shift in Southern Churches, who had been critical of slavery, but now switched and began to promote it, mostly to keep their flocks coming, who didn't appreciate being told they were going to hell because they owned slaves. The changed in the church as well as the reaction to Nat Turner's rebellion created a new generation of Southern politicians who thought that not only was slavery not immoral, but was in fact a moral, civilizing institution. That was the view of Jefferson Davis. John C. Calhoun and likely Justice Roger B. Taney as well, shifted from the "necessary evil" opinion that defined their generation of poltiicians and came into line with the view of the 1850's. There is a quote from Calhoun from 1838 indicating this shift.

The people of this "de-generation" of Southern Politicans were desperate. It is hard to describe them as anything else. As you move closer to the Civil War, their demands and their views became more extreme, more demanding and less alligned with any kind of principles. They willingly embraced things like states rights to protect the slave states, and then abandoned them (some went as far as to insist that only through the embrace of slavery by the north, could the South's rights be preserved), when it served their purpose.

Thus I get to nine:

Quote
9. The change in public opinion and feeling in relation to the African race which has taken place since the adoption of the Constitution cannot change its construction and meaning, and it must be construed and administered now according to its true meaning and intention when it was formed and adopted.

This was the height of hypocrisy and in my view, the classic case of covering yourself by accusing someone else of doing the exact same thing that you are doing.

In my view, the Supreme Court was projecting its own biases onto a Constitutional Convention for the purposes of convenience. There were states that granted as much as the right to vote to blacks in the 1787, and nothing in the Constitution stips these persons of that right. The insinuation otherwise is that Elbridge Gerry and his collegues from MA, were either voting in ignorance of the consequences for some of their state's citizens or willfully voting to strip person's within those states, or that well known Abolitionists such as Ben Franklin and Alexander Hamilton were purposely affixing themselves to a document that would have forceably implanted on a group of states, someone else's views regarding who was and was not a citizen in those states.

If anything, the delegates of the convention were envisioning an America one day free of slavery, but that for the moment the best path towards that end was to structure a union that could stand the tests of time, even if that meant accepting the three-fifths compromise as a way to get started on that road without a breakup. That would certainly be more reflective of the true views of Washington, Franklin and many of the other delegates there.


Title: Re: The Good Post Gallery
Post by: minionofmidas - supplemental forum account on March 27, 2013, 01:50:04 pm

Quote
Statement by Simfan34 concerning his banning

I would like to make it clear to you all that I- well, I don’t know, am gone? That much is obvious. But I would like to make my perspective known, to tell my side of the story, for anyone who would like to know it. I know some people have asked and have wondered about it, and I will try to accurately explain both my offenses and general topics.

Let me be clear- I am not alleging that I have been wronged, or that I was in any way mistreated. The moderator account of events, which I have seen, is completely true. But I think I owe you an explanation, and if you don’t think so- don’t read. But to say why I created the offending accounts, I’ll try to explain. There were two, and only two, several months apart. If you want to consider Simfan35 a sock, that makes three, but I don’t consider that fair. Those two were TheReporter and Fidelio.

I can tell you why I created Fidelio. It was to post a “Simfan34 vs. Demrepdan” poll. There. That’s it. Breaking a rule to honor a custom (of not posting match-ups concerning yourself). Awfully ironic considering my taste for archaic protocols. Let me digress by adding I believed what I said. That’s that. I then tried to log in, not knowing that the system recorded IPs on logon. That, in a way, was the mistake of the mistake – the mistake being creating the accounts in the first place. I assumed I had actually been banned, and then- “first as tragedy, then as farce” applies here I suppose. Or the converse.

And there is what I do not know, really. I don’t know why I created TheReporter, which was solely to…report my own posts? That’s nonsensical, really. The contrarian leftist part, I understand, but not the reporting. In that vein, was it not obvious it was me, if IPs are recorded upon log in? Of course, the question is moot. I also don’t know why I created the “Alastair Hackson” account to feed information to Inks. I was doomed after I logged in—maybe that has something to do with it—but I don’t know why I felt the need to accelerate my demise. Though Inks deserves credit for his bluff, which I fell for—which was to post my IP from the website and claim he could see it in Google chat. Remember, you’re blessed in having Inks, and I believe in him as strongly as I did before I was banned.

The greatest crime, I think, was my dishonesty to the moderation, who were quite thoroughly on my side until it was no longer possible. BK, Torie, even Inks- who if not for- or maybe even despite—the fact I was banned, I would commend. I think they deserve an unconditional apology from me, and that is what this is, really. You really do deserve an apology, and a proper one, not the plea of a beggar disguised as one. I apologise for the lies I told, and really the time I wasted. And I apologise to the community at large, and I hope over time you may forgive me.

Well that’s that. Some general points- time has increased my appreciation for Al. I like him, now. BRTD, Lena Dunham remains terrible. Bow ties remain good. Consider the Social Credit Party. And I have been asked if I will return- no! I do not want to become a chronic troll.  I would best like to remembered as a fundamentally decent poster with a sock problem, and not an evil troll. You will never see me again here. So I feel it very important to set the record straight for once and for all.

Thank you.

Simfan34


Title: Re: The Good Post Gallery
Post by: Grumpy Santa on March 27, 2013, 01:57:14 pm

Remember, you’re blessed in having Inks, and I believe in him as strongly as I did before I was banned.


Thank you.

Simfan34
[/quote]

It's not all good.  But he is right about BRTD and whoever that other woman is.-+


Title: Re: The Good Post Gallery
Post by: Northam for Governor '17 on March 27, 2013, 03:54:21 pm
Exactly. The liberal counter-culture of the 60s and 70s became the biggest share of the Romney 2012 electorate.

Incorrect. 

The liberal counter-culture of the 1960s was a very loud minority made popular by its radical and newsworthy nature.  For every hippie dancing in the Bay Area, there was a kid in Mississippi protesting busing and school integration.  For every veteran who tossed his medals in protest, there's a Vietnam vet angry we didn't keep going until we won the war.  Oh, and then there's this:

Age 18-24 Exit Polls (became 18-29 in 1988)
1976: Ford 51%, Carter 49%
1980: Carter 45%, Reagan 44%, Anderson 11%
1984: Reagan 61%, Mondale 38%
1988: Bush 53%, Dukakis 47%

As you can see, only in 1980 did the Democrat do better with youth than with olds, and much of that was because 18-24 voted most for the John Anderson option, another Republican, instead of Reagan.

If you really want to see the trend, you'll see that the 1976 18-24 demo barely changed at all over the course of their lives:

1976: Ford +2 (18-24 group)
1980: Reagan +2 (24-29 group)
1984: Reagan +21 (30-39 group)
1988: Bush +8 (30-39 group)
1992: Clinton +2 (30-39 group)
1996: Clinton +7 (40-49 group)
2000: Bush +2 (40-49 group)
2004: Bush +7 (40-49 group)
2008: Obama +1 (50-64 group)
2012: Romney +2 (50-64 group)

As you can see, the youths of 1976 have been consistently 2 points more Republican than the population as a whole in every election except 1980, most of that caused by John Anderson, a Republican, receiving double digit support among this group.  Reagan likely would have won young people by 12 points in 1980 without that third party candidacy.   Jimmy Carter was elected by older Americans of the day not young ones.

The idea that people become conservative as they grow older is a huge myth.  Every conservative in Congress today was a conservative when they were in college, you can just ask them.

The olds of the past were the New Deal Democrats, the youths of the past distrusted government post-Watergate and Vietnam.  Today, the youth demand a better federal government.  The olds still distrust government.


Title: Re: The Good Post Gallery
Post by: Napoleon on March 27, 2013, 11:38:49 pm
I don't even use Facebook but this is a nice little post.

Political arguments on Facebook are just about the worst thing on the Internet; even moreso than YouTube comments, because this time it's your own friends and/or family that you're discovering to be moronic assholes.

Its true, the internet allows us to see some of the best and worst of people at the same time.


Title: Re: The Good Post Gallery
Post by: Lief 🐋 on March 28, 2013, 01:16:59 am
Mikado seems to have a caricature of science advocates and Rationalism in his head that has no bearing on reality. For instance...

In other words, what I oppose isn't atheism, it's Rationalism and the scientific paradigm itself.  It refuses to keep to itself and expands into fields it can't comprehend, intruding on and smashing literature, music, philosophy, history, economics, and others beneath its weighty models.

I don't think I've ever seen science advocates try to apply it to literature and music in any significant fashion. Sure, we might study human reactions to such things and see how their brains light up, but at no point has science ever had something to say about whether a piece of literature is interesting or a piece of music beautiful.

In regards to philosophy, I suppose it might depend on whether or not the philosophy makes statements of fact that are measurable, but human values aren't something science has anything to say about. You might be a hedonist, and while science may be able to in some fashion be able to determine the benefits and consequences of your hedonism it can't and doesn't try to put them on a scale and determine the worth of those things - only humans can assign 'value' to them.

History and economics... well, sorry Mikado, but science has legitimate reason to be in these fields. Archaeology is valuable in determining our history, and it is both a science and a humanity. How can we determine the age of something we've dug up if we don't use the tools we have developed through science? As far as economics goes, businesses use science all the time. They gather data scientifically and make models because they have been proven to work and increase their profits. Still, science can't necessarily say why humans enjoy certain products.

Science advocates push for science because we want to improve the human condition. We want to make people's lives better. We still enjoy literature, music, poetry, and all of those kinds of things just as much as everyone else.

I'll close with a quote that we science advocates quite favor...

"There is grandeur in this view of life, with its several powers, having been originally breathed into a few forms or into one; and that, whilst this planet has gone cycling on according to the fixed law of gravity, from so simple a beginning endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful have been, and are being, evolved." - Charles Darwin, The Origin of Species


Title: Re: The Good Post Gallery
Post by: Trounce-'em Theresa on March 28, 2013, 02:42:23 pm
You cannot under Danish law base a price difference simply on gender, there needs to be an objective criterion. On average women have longer hair than men, but that's no reason to charge all women a  higher price.
If you don't like the equal treatment principle - or think the government should mind its own business - you can call it a "joke law", but the court was simply doing its job interpreting the law. No other outcome was really possible in this case. So you cant reasonably call it a joke court.


Title: Re: The Good Post Gallery
Post by: Saturday's Cab Ride Home on March 31, 2013, 12:22:49 am
Guys, this is not solely about Ben's views on gay marriage, but his overall moderate hero political views. One would think he is running for President in 2016.


Title: Re: The Good Post Gallery
Post by: A Strange Reflection on March 31, 2013, 12:24:40 am
Stop trolling, BRTD.


Title: Re: The Good Post Gallery
Post by: Saturday's Cab Ride Home on March 31, 2013, 12:31:44 am
Stop trolling, BRTD.

It's not trolling to quote someone who is simply speaking the truth. Do you disagree with sbane about the absurd extremes of Ben's Moderate Heroism?


Title: Re: The Good Post Gallery
Post by: Napoleon on March 31, 2013, 12:32:52 am
Stop trolling, BRTD.

It's not trolling to quote someone who is simply speaking the truth. Do you disagree with sbane about the absurd extremes of Ben's Moderate Heroism?

Its not about agreeing or disagreeing, it belongs in the Comedy Goldmine.

The Good Post Gallery mission statement:
To justify having the less positive post dumps, we ought to have one where we can show off solid, well reasoned posts that are worth having everyone read. I will start us off with a thoughtful post from a hot topic. Informative posts that forumites shouldn't miss go here.


Title: Re: The Good Post Gallery
Post by: Averroës on April 02, 2013, 07:46:39 am
Look at Herman Cain, J.C. Watts, Tim Scott, Allen West, etc.

Meh, all of those examples except for Watts come from the "Tea Party era" of the last few years.  And I don't even know if I'd agree that Watts was much more right wing than the average House Republican of the Class of 1994.  And of course, he was representing Oklahoma.

I think what you have here is the fact that the Tea Party phenomenon has elevated many people of mediocre talents purely on the basis of their ideological ferver, and there is a sort of affirmative action of media attention, such that Tea Party racial minorities with mediocre talents have an easier time getting media attention than their white counterparts with mediocre talents, and so they can get ahead more easily.  I mean, would Scott have been such a lock to be Haley's pick for that US Senate seat if he was white?  Would Cain have been invited to every debate if he was white, or excluded from most of them like Johnson and Roemer?


Title: Re: The Good Post Gallery
Post by: Northam for Governor '17 on April 02, 2013, 07:55:39 am
With the shading system for party margins used for some of the parliamentary maps on this site, here are maps of past elections going back to Jackson's first victory:
...


Title: Re: The Good Post Gallery
Post by: Grumpy Santa on April 02, 2013, 02:01:44 pm
Jmfcst's banning is an objective negative mark on our moderators' records.  Other bans upset fanboys and were controversial, but ultimately right IMO. 

Jmfcst is different.  He is the only member who was objectively banned for no good reason other than his political beliefs.  He was an abrasive poster, but we have plenty of abrasive posters.  His crime was being anti-gay.  There's no way you can dispute it, especially now that we have threads started by our mods (afleitch) going back into the archives ridiculing non-supporters of gay marriage.  At the very least, it put him under a microscope for scrutiny.

It was a petty political ban.


Title: Re: The Good Post Gallery
Post by: A Strange Reflection on April 02, 2013, 02:39:17 pm
@Ben: Couldn't you just put a link?


Title: Re: The Good Post Gallery
Post by: Grumpy Santa on April 02, 2013, 02:40:28 pm
@Ben: Couldn't you just put a link?

He really deserves death points for not doing so.


Title: Re: The Good Post Gallery
Post by: opebo on April 02, 2013, 03:07:33 pm
Jmfcst's banning is an objective negative mark on our moderators' records.  Other bans upset fanboys and were controversial, but ultimately right IMO. 

Jmfcst is different.  He is the only member who was objectively banned for no good reason other than his political beliefs.  He was an abrasive poster, but we have plenty of abrasive posters.  His crime was being anti-gay.  There's no way you can dispute it, especially now that we have threads started by our mods (afleitch) going back into the archives ridiculing non-supporters of gay marriage.  At the very least, it put him under a microscope for scrutiny.

It was a petty political ban.


Title: Re: The Good Post Gallery
Post by: Trounce-'em Theresa on April 02, 2013, 03:16:55 pm
RIP Þ thorn and ſ long s, casualties of English's dumbing down.  :(  May you rest by Æ and Œ in peace.


Title: Re: The Good Post Gallery
Post by: shua on April 05, 2013, 12:38:41 am
People are posting me like I'm Scripture now?

Anyway, the point I was trying to make in that post was that I fundamentally reject the entire "Rationalist" ethos of the supremacy of, superiority of, and triumph of science.  Scientific thought, like any other school of knowledge, is fundamentally ideological, but science's advocates make claims to objectivity.  There is far more complexity and emotional depth to the human experience than Reason and Logic can ever plumb, wild waves of profoundly irrational emotions, forbidden desires, dark lusts, and crazed cravings that torment and madden us.  The Romanticists knew it and the ancients knew it, but modernity tries to reject it and compartmentalize and explain everything about us and the world we live in. 

Mystery, grandeur, the graceful, moral highs and the wicked, murderous lows of the human condition reduced to diagrams and technical terms in an attempt to crush the colorful fables and fascinating origin stories of yore.  I don't agree with "Christianity" on too terribly much, but on a sentimental level, its recognition of human wickedness and human divinty, of the chaotic, dark mess of the human spirit, is far more compelling than the vision of crushing us into mechanistic contraptions  of pumps and joints and electric signals and chemical triggers.



Title: Re: The Good Post Gallery
Post by: Watermelon sin Jamón on April 05, 2013, 08:15:16 am
Well, it's official: speaking as a casual MLP fan, I have officially found the worst brony in the entire fandom.

That is saying a lot.

I actually know a guy who's attracted to it.

As in, he's even drawn pornography of it.

That's about 20% of the fanbase, from what I've read.

And, you know, while weird that is perfectly fine. Just as watching that thing is fine (or as near to fine as watching anything on commercial tv regularly is fine, which is to say not really, not entirely.) Mentioning your like for some silly show occasionally, putting it in your sig - fine.

Time to draw a line:



There she is.

Pretending this sh!t is relevant, or serious, or that other people's dislike is not fine: sick.

One of the few reasonable posts in the raging insane-brony-vs-hateful-everyone-else war going on in the Deluge. Thanks for that Lewis.


Title: Re: The Good Post Gallery
Post by: Northam for Governor '17 on April 05, 2013, 10:04:47 am
@Ben: Couldn't you just put a link?

Um, it didn't occur to me :P  It's been edited.


Title: Re: The Good Post Gallery
Post by: Trounce-'em Theresa on April 06, 2013, 08:34:50 pm
This is an excellent post, insofar as the question of historical accuracy is relevant. This entire thread had been irritating me. Including my own posts in it, actually.

A prof. at Liberty University thinks there is incontestable proof that Jesus rose from the dead?  Imagine that.  Are we sure this piece wasn't the writing sample he submitted when he applied for the job in the first place?

In any case, for a philosophy professor, Habermas sure likes to slip subtle equivocations underneath the door.  He constantly makes reference to the Gospels as "texts that are accepted by virtually all scholars" in the field, and sometimes adds the rider that the texts are accepted by all scholars "as historical."  Of course the texts are accepted as legitimate first century documents produced by followers of the Christian movement, and of course they obviously make historical claims.  But that is far from saying that "virtually all" scholars in the field accept these texts as true and as making otherwise legitimate and corroborated historical claims.  There has been considerable skepticism about these latter possibilities for a very long time.  Those five points will only seem compelling if one accepts the texts as historically accurate in the first place, but that's the very point many scholars vigorously dispute.     


Title: Re: The Good Post Gallery
Post by: A Strange Reflection on April 07, 2013, 06:07:16 pm
Again, if I were to introduce a female speaker at a professional conference in my field, and in the course of listing her accomplishments, said she was the hottest woman in the field, people would think it was pretty inappropriate.  Doesn't actually matter whether I'm her boss or not.  It's just inappropriate and unprofessional, because it reinforces the idea that women should be judged on their looks in the professional world, and that her looks are part of the reason why we should value her.

And of course whether Harris says she was offended or not has no bearing on whether Obama should have said it in the first place.  At the time Obama said it, he had no way of knowing what Harris's reaction was going to be!  (And in the very public context in which this occurred, it's possible that Harris didn't like it, but didn't say so because she didn't want to feed the political storm over a relatively minor transgression on Obama's part.)


Title: Re: The Good Post Gallery
Post by: A Strange Reflection on April 08, 2013, 01:16:56 am
Old, but it deserves to be there:

Dangerous, corrupt, reactionary, hypocritical, pathological liar

Let's have a look in detail.
Accountability. If you remember, Harper came in on a platform of 'good governance' and his government passed the FAA. Now, Harper is the first PM to be brought down for contempt of Parliament related to corruption and lies. He has refused to disclose to Parliament the cost for his programs. His minister(s) have lied to Parliamentary committees. Furthermore, Harper shut down Parliament rather than face scrutiny over the Afghan detainees scandal. In 2005, Harper and his acolytes - then in opposition - offered dying MP Chuck Cadman a million-dollar life insurance policy in exchange for his vote to bring down the Liberal government. Bribery. The Conservatives broke Elections Canada rules in the 2006 campaign. Nice job on accountability, Harpo.

Fiscal prudence. My friend always tells me how Harper is good for the economy. Let's take a trip down memory lane, Tory friends. We have a $55+ billion deficit, when we had a $16 billion surplus in 2006 and a $38 billion deficit in 1993. Good job on that one. Let's also take a look at the G20. It cost us more than a billion, part of which went to build an artificial lake - next to a real lake, cottages and a bunch of very useful things in middle-of-nowhere Ontario. The G20 also saw, btw, the largest mass arrest in Canadian history and serious allegations of police brutality, lack of serious care for injuries, denial of access to counsel and arrest without warrant.

Again on fiscal stuff, Harper bought a whole slew of F-35s without a competitive bid. Saying that they'll cost $75 million each. A report from the US Government Accountability Office said the price doubled from $81-million (U.S.) to $156 million per plane.

Low taxes. The old creed of the right. 2007-2009 the share of federal revenue from personal income tax went from 55.5% to 60.6%. The richest 1% are taxed less than the poorest 10%. Corporate taxes went from 20% to 15.4% (+ another $5.6 billion in corporate tax cuts in the 2011/2012 budget). Corporate taxes are lower in Canada than in practically every other country: the UK is 21-28%, NZ is 28%, Germany is 29.8%, Australia is 30%, France is 33%.1 The argument for low corporate taxes is that it encourages business growth. Sidelining the fact that this isn't a proven fact, I don't think that Germany or Australia with their high corporate taxes are third-world countries with no business. My Tory MP tells me his priority is to "keep taxes low". For who? Harpo's friends in the tar sands business or Canadians?

Fiscal stimulus! Good for the economy! More like 'pork and barrel spending'. I could attack this from Harper's 1997 or so point of view of neoliberalism and low spending, but I'll look from another angle. 60% of cash went to Tory constituencies, which make up 46% of Canada. Funding didn't go to green jobs, because Ecoenergy, Canada's successful green initiative, was terminated.

The environment. Dear Lord. Harper's government looks like the board of directors of some Calgary oil sands corporation. $1.4 billion in federal subsidies go to the very profitable as they are tar sands oil/gas corporations. Environment Canada's budget is less than that (1% of revenue). Environment ministers, all 5 in 5 years, have been failures. Rona Ambrose, John Baird, Jim Prentice, John Baird again and now some TV journalist. Harper broke the Kyoto Agreement, which we signed, pledging to go 6% below 1990 emissions. We went 35% above. Harper's -17% from 2005 would be +2.5% over 1990 levels - the weakest target in the west. Harper appointed Chris Essex, a climate change denier, to a prominent science/innovation position. The Canadian Foundation for Climate and Atmospheric Sciences had no funding in 2011. Our icebreaker Amundsen, outfitted for climate research... was leased to BP for oil exploration in the Arctic. At environmental conferences, Canada obstructed progress more than anybody else. Our role in the world as a leader for environmental progress and green policies has been squandered entirely. We won the Fossil of the Day in 2010 for the fourth day in a row. Harper's governments works with oil companies to lobby against climate legislation and promote dirty energy.

The West always throws hissy fits over the Senate. Harper supported triple-E senate reform and called it illegitimate and crony. Harper appointed a whole slew of Senators - including the likes of fat useless TV hack Mike Duffy or illiterate hockey coach Jacques Demers. Harper said an unelected Senate shouldn't block legislation. When the NDP's C-311 on climate change passed... the Senate killed it without debate.

Foreign policy. Canada has drawn sharp rebuke for its human rights policy. It cost us a seat on the UNSC. We voted against the UN Declaration of Indigenous Rights (with the US, Australia and NZ).

In other stuff...
-child mortality have risen from 6th lowest to 24th lowest.
-one in seven Canadians live in poverty, and that number is increasing.
-Harper wants to change the name "Government of Canada" to the "Harper Government"
-Harper's government breaks all record for ultra-centralization of power and decision making.
-Canadian forces transferred Afghan prisoners to Afghan authorities, who systematically tortured them. Transferring prisoners to someone who you know will torture them is a war crime under the Geneva Convention. When a diplomat blew the whistle, Harpo derided him. Prorogued Parliament. Refused and still refuses to release uncensored documents. Accountability!
-Harper's government wants to eliminate the long form census - against the advice of every respected analyst, statistician and politician. The long form census provides municipalities, provinces with useful information for transit planning, urban development, housing policies, health policies and so forth.
-Harper practically fired the nuclear watchdog when she highlighted serious issues at a nuclear reactor
-Crime is down, but Harper wants to build super prisons rather than support rehabilitation - research shows such policies make criminals more likely to reoffend. Rehabilitation programs, victim aid initiatives have had budgets cut.
-Harper attempted to repeal gay marriage in 2006
-Harper broke his own legislation on fixed election dates
-Harper wants to eliminate tax subsidies to political parties, so that big corporations could fund his party as much as they wish while cutting revenue for smaller parties.
-Harper's government spent taxpayers money on useless TV ads boasting the stimulus just weeks before an "unwanted election" (quote from every Tory)

He's also a liar.
In 1997, he publicly supported coalitions of opposition parties including the Bloc. In 2004, he attempted to bring down the Liberal government and form a coalition including the NDP with Bloc support. Now he say's their illegitimate. Losers can't form coalitions. I'm sure that Baden-Wurttemberg will be pleased to hear that their government is illegitimate.

In this campaign, his security team expelled people from rallies for having Facebook links to the opposition. He refuses to take over 5 questions. He dodges serious questions, and derides the motion of contempt as a mere parliamentary shenanigan. Harpo, this is a parliamentary democracy. You rule as long as Parliament has confidence in you. This isn't a Consultative Assembly. The CPC attempted to prevent students from voting at Guelph.

Conservative MPs are basically forbidden from speaking. They rarely show up at all-candidates debates (ex: Julian Fantino avoided the media in the Vaughan by-election). The PMO must basically screen what they say. My own Tory MP hasn't proposed one private members bill since 2006. My Tory MP hasn't brought any jobs to his constituency - in fact, a defense facility moved out of this constituency.

So, yeah. Vote Conservative.



Title: Re: The Good Post Gallery
Post by: True Federalist on April 08, 2013, 09:55:36 am
Margaret Thatcher was not a monster. Monsters are made and created by people to create a crude caricature of their own fears, angers and vices and that was true of Margaret Thatcher. You can disagree with her and you can disagree with the direction in which she took this country but for many she was a person on to which they could direct their own anger. People had a very tough time in the 1980’s because of what her government did, people suffered, people lost and had to pick themselves up my own family included, but many people had a tough existence because they didn’t strive to better themselves when opportunities arose. I came from a family and a town of miners and steelworkers. But come the end of the 20th Century the mining stopped and the steel working stopped and for some their whole world ended. I fully understand it. It must have felt the same for my family and my town at end of the 19th Century when the cotton mills stopped because that was all they knew or for my family at the end of the 18th Century when they were thrown out of their farmland. But you pick yourselves up and you move on and adjust to the new economy because it will always change; that is the capitalist system. And workers have always responded to those demands; they’ve been smart enough to do that. My family did that and had that same spirit, yet some of my neighbours did not. You cannot blame that one woman thirty years later if you still have not adjusted and re-skilled to meet the demands of the economy and missed the opportunities because you pine for a past that really wasn’t as idealistic and as community spirited as you feel it was. That is my address to those who are of a certain age but it’s not really appropriate on this board.

For those on this board who are not of that age, then you don’t really have the right to ‘claim’ her, either as a great woman or as a monster. It wasn’t your life or your existence.


Title: Re: The Good Post Gallery
Post by: Mechaman on April 08, 2013, 01:34:33 pm
People who don't think it's all about money are kidding themselves. I suppose a Starbucks barista with a Masters in Early Modern English Literature may like to think of herself as better than a plumber.  Whatever gets you through the night.


Title: Re: The Good Post Gallery
Post by: © tweed on April 08, 2013, 02:20:36 pm
Margaret Thatcher was not a monster. Monsters are made and created by people to create a crude caricature of their own fears, angers and vices and that was true of Margaret Thatcher. You can disagree with her and you can disagree with the direction in which she took this country but for many she was a person on to which they could direct their own anger. People had a very tough time in the 1980’s because of what her government did, people suffered, people lost and had to pick themselves up my own family included, but many people had a tough existence because they didn’t strive to better themselves when opportunities arose. I came from a family and a town of miners and steelworkers. But come the end of the 20th Century the mining stopped and the steel working stopped and for some their whole world ended. I fully understand it. It must have felt the same for my family and my town at end of the 19th Century when the cotton mills stopped because that was all they knew or for my family at the end of the 18th Century when they were thrown out of their farmland. But you pick yourselves up and you move on and adjust to the new economy because it will always change; that is the capitalist system. And workers have always responded to those demands; they’ve been smart enough to do that. My family did that and had that same spirit, yet some of my neighbours did not. You cannot blame that one woman thirty years later if you still have not adjusted and re-skilled to meet the demands of the economy and missed the opportunities because you pine for a past that really wasn’t as idealistic and as community spirited as you feel it was.