The Good Post Gallery

[FEMA Camp Administrator]

As for me:

Democrats: Brown
GOP: Reagan

Why Reagan? Christopher was a moderate who didn't want to end free higher education and also wasn't a racist proto-Teabagger.

Didn't you get the memo?  You're not supposed to talk about Reagan's obvious racism, you commie!

Reagan was not a racist.  When he was playing football at Eureka College, he brought two black teammates to his parents' house after the hotel where they were staying wouldn't allow them in:

http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2011/01/17/michael-reagan-ronald-reagan-friend-blacks-obama/

If Reagan ever opposed the 1964 CRA (and he initially said it "should be enforced at gunpoint if necessary,") it was because he had (unfounded) concerns over its constitutionality as an extension of federal power over the states.

Still, if I'd been a voter in California in 1966, I wouldn't have entirely trusted Reagan on civil rights, which is why I chose Christopher.

Reagan was seen as the rich man's George Wallace prior to 1980.

Seen by who?

Well color me flattered for finally ending up in here, though I do say I would've expected it to be for a post more than three words long.

[FEMA Camp Administrator]

Hey, Tony, calm down there for a second. If it weren't for him, I wouldn't have made it in here at all (Thanks, forum).

[FEMA Camp Administrator]

Desmond Tutu has always been an role model of mine in my spiritual (and someday to be ministerial) life.  I share his sentiments entirely, as I abandoned the whole "God hates gays/gay behaviors/people who aren't like me" stuff many years ago.  I am just not capable of having a personal relationship with a God who condemns homosexuals, and if the God I've come to know all these years turns out to be the wrong one, well, then damn me to hell.

Tutu's position is problematic; not his view on homosexuality, so much as his notion of not wanting to worship _____ God. As Cathcon said, there is no moral judgement above God (in the Christian view). As fallible, fallen humans it is unsurprising that our moral views sometimes come into conflict with God's.

By rejecting "homophobic God", Tutu is echoing Satan in Paradise Lost "Better to reign in Hell, than serve in Heav'n."; rejecting God in favour of rebellion. This is very different that arguing that God is ok with homosexuality, it is much deeper and much more dangerous than that.

Well, if believing in equality is rebelling against God, then I guess the Reverend and I are destined for a not-so-nice place when we die.

(I should note that I'm saying this as someone who doesn't believe in a Hell or "other place" for people whose morals differ from God's.  I can only speak for myself on that, of course.)

This isn't about homosexuality or who's going to heaven/hell. The question is whether God is the ultimate arbiter of morality.

If you told me "God forbids alcohol", I could answer with "no he doesn't" or "God is wrong, f[inks] what he thinks". The second answer is a much more serious error than the first one. I don't really care what Tutu's thought's on homosexuality are, but by rejecting this hypothetical "God's view" he is effectively saying he has higher moral authority than God, and that is what I am alarmed at.

[FEMA Camp Administrator]

No (American)

This. The system of oppression the British Empire has been operating under for hundreds of years has gone on long past fashionability. Hopefully one day, loyal patriots in Ireland, Scotland, and Wales can shed the burden of tyranny like we in American did so long ago and join in a union of liberty.

Yes this, the fascist monarchists with their tea time, and vast riches will soon be deposed by the great people of the Isles, and when it happens, the freedom fighters of today and of days past like: Washington, Lincoln, TR, Ron Paul and Jesus will be there smiling, clothed in white robes, basking in the glorious sunlight of victory, for they will know that justice has been served. And the riches will be distributed among the poor, and a drunken feast will last for 1,000 years, and we will all scream the battle hymn of the Republic, and ride off into the eternal sunset.

[FEMA Camp Administrator]

What is Catchon's idea of freedom? His idea of freedom, you ask? It is, simply, the freedom to sit and shoot the breeze at the lake; to sit in smoky bars watching the nightly news on the monochrome TV; to not have to think (more out of a desire for perceived simplicity than out of malice) about too much to do with race and sex and class; to have a good, probably industrial or managerial job, well-protected in some way or another but probably not through the presence of a strong union; to go to a good, solid, apolitical or vaguely center-right and culturally conservative working-class Catholic parish; to drive powerful cars and drink bitter beer and fire off guns in the woods when he so pleases; to live, in other words, in Michigan as it could be, Michigan as it is perceived to once have been, Michigan as it is dreamed it might be again, the Michigan that has verily opened the door to the new world, withdrawing from the general concourse of humanity's sad history like Hara Setsuko, a Michigan defined by freedom from insecurity and uncertainty and particular types of change, The Michigan That We Dreamed Of.

[FEMA Camp Administrator]

It's hilarious that people in this thread are basically saying "rape happens, unfortunately, so being a feminist won't change that" when the idea of feminism is to change society so rape doesn't happen

We don't deny that rape happens, we deny that it is the woman's fault and we accept that men should control their urges instead of raping women

So keep digging me for being a feminist, i'm gonna take my "slacktivism" everywhere I go, because I constantly tell people not to slut-shame, victim blame or make rape jokes if i'm in the room unless they want a stern lecturing (ooooh badass, right?)

If you people don't believe society can't change, you're sorely mistaken.

The legion of strawmen you just destroyed with this post brings to mind ancient myths of Egyptian Pharaohs singlehandedly wiping out their enemies on the field of battle as their armies cower in fear behind them.

The problem with this "debate" isn't posters like, say, Nathan who actually know what the f they're talking about and have some knowledge of academic feminism. It's the bravery bandwagon of teenagers like you and Snowstalker who have apparently decided to latch on to shallow Tumblr "feminism" as their latest affectation in the long string of ideologies they'll passionately subscribe to for a couple of months.  I get, you're liberal or whatever now. You don't need to keep attempting to prove such by spending your days existing in a state of perpetual outrage.

I am covered in buzzword vomit, and it's not pleasant.

Shockingly, I also believe that rape is a bad thing. You don't get any justice brownie points for that groundbreaking and courageous opinion. It is actually possible to admit there are situations where rape is more likely to occur and that it's wise for women to try and avoid said while - wait for it! - still thinking rape is an abhorrent crime! I hope that's not too complex to process. It's awful that rape is a thing that happens, but it doesn't constitute "victim blaming" to suggest that people minimise the risk, and it's obscene and offensive to suggest that those of us who think that's (unfortunately) a sensible position are somehow blaming the victim or are in any way okay with rape.

I don't think it's absurd to suggest that people can change society. I do think it's absurd to act like calling out some random people on an internet forum with a litany of empty buzzwords and moral posturing is an example of anything approaching productive discourse.

That's beautiful.

[FEMA Camp Administrator]

I hope someone didn't beat me on this.

Hi.

Speaking up as a member of the What-if board regulars (though I do not presume to be its representative) I'd like to state my appreciation of your interest in the What-if board, alternate scenarios and the like. The What-if community has been on the wane since my joining the forum, and "new blood" is always appreciated.

However, you seem to be getting ahead of yourself a bit in your participation here. Today alone, you have started five threads, some of which pertaining to the same election. Looking back to the bottom of the first page yields further threads started by you, and you account for roughly 43% (nearly half!) of threads on the first page.

There is also the matter of Alternative Elections elections, where you've posted an additional 8 threads (23%, not as egregious) and two more threads on the main forum (both of which misplaced and belonging in the Past US Election What-ifs board (which would make you fall just short of half of the threads posted.)

Additionally, some of the scenarios are a bit far-flung. Brown as Carter's VP? The ticket would have ~6 years of "legitimate" experience to it. Dukakis picking Jackson? Perhaps if the Electoral College was scored like golf. For the sake of brevity, I'll disregard issues with Dole picking Buchanan or Wilson.

Point being, that you have been turning this board into your own personal barf bag. Your enthusiasm is appreciated here, but I think I speak for the community when I ask that you tone it down with the thread creation for a few days.

[FEMA Camp Administrator]

In terms of this awful debate on animal rights, public transit is of course a ridiculous idea, but in awful cities like New York, it may be necessary. That said, it should be the best it can be, and if we can decrease the surplus population of animals to do it, all the better. Though seriously, I get pissed off at slow drivers. People gotta get to places and they don't need some damned rodents to get in the way.

[FEMA Camp Administrator]

ut whatevs Dawg (TM Cathcon).