The Good Post Gallery
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
March 28, 2024, 01:15:42 PM
News: Election Simulator 2.0 Released. Senate/Gubernatorial maps, proportional electoral votes, and more - Read more

  Talk Elections
  Forum Community
  Forum Community (Moderators: The Dowager Mod, YE, KoopaDaQuick 🇵🇸)
  The Good Post Gallery
« previous next »
Pages: 1 ... 6 7 8 9 10 [11] 12 13 14 15 16 ... 45
Author Topic: The Good Post Gallery  (Read 178143 times)
opebo
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 47,010


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #250 on: October 06, 2012, 04:35:33 PM »

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

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).
Logged
Vote UKIP!
MasterSanders
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 990
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #251 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.
Tongue         

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.
Logged
🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸
shua
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 25,663
Nepal


Political Matrix
E: 1.29, S: -0.70

WWW Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #252 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.
Logged
Antonio the Sixth
Antonio V
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 57,962
United States


Political Matrix
E: -7.87, S: -3.83

P P
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #253 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.
Logged
opebo
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 47,010


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #254 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
Logged
opebo
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 47,010


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #255 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.

Logged
they don't love you like i love you
BRTD
Atlas Prophet
*****
Posts: 112,700
Ukraine


Political Matrix
E: -6.50, S: -6.67

P P
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #256 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.
Logged
opebo
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 47,010


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #257 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.
Logged
Donerail
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 15,345
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #258 on: October 11, 2012, 03:06:04 PM »


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.
Logged
Marokai Backbeat
Marokai Blue
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 17,477
United States


Political Matrix
E: -7.42, S: -7.39

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #259 on: October 11, 2012, 03:08:02 PM »

No post without proper paragraphing has ever been good.
Logged
Oakvale
oakvale
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 11,827
Ukraine
Political Matrix
E: -0.77, S: -4.00

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #260 on: October 11, 2012, 03:11:06 PM »


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". Sad

Also, paragraphs.
Logged
They put it to a vote and they just kept lying
20RP12
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 38,235
United States


Political Matrix
E: -5.29, S: -7.13

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #261 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.
Logged
Filuwaúrdjan
Realpolitik
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 67,609
United Kingdom


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #262 on: October 11, 2012, 03:57:25 PM »

No post without proper paragraphing has ever been good.
Logged
後援会
koenkai
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,265


Political Matrix
E: 0.71, S: -2.52

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #263 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.
Logged
後援会
koenkai
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,265


Political Matrix
E: 0.71, S: -2.52

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #264 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.
Logged
Donerail
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 15,345
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #265 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.
Logged
They put it to a vote and they just kept lying
20RP12
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 38,235
United States


Political Matrix
E: -5.29, S: -7.13

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #266 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.
Logged
Bacon King
Atlas Politician
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 18,822
United States


Political Matrix
E: -7.63, S: -9.49

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #267 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.
Logged
World politics is up Schmitt creek
Nathan
Moderators
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 34,248


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #268 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?
Logged
they don't love you like i love you
BRTD
Atlas Prophet
*****
Posts: 112,700
Ukraine


Political Matrix
E: -6.50, S: -6.67

P P
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #269 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.
Logged
courts
Ghost_white
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 6,466
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #270 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.
Logged
they don't love you like i love you
BRTD
Atlas Prophet
*****
Posts: 112,700
Ukraine


Political Matrix
E: -6.50, S: -6.67

P P
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #271 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.
Logged
courts
Ghost_white
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 6,466
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #272 on: October 18, 2012, 04:48:40 PM »

good find zach. also kind of an obvious one:

Logged
they don't love you like i love you
BRTD
Atlas Prophet
*****
Posts: 112,700
Ukraine


Political Matrix
E: -6.50, S: -6.67

P P
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #273 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.  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.


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.
Logged
opebo
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 47,010


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #274 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.


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...
Logged
Pages: 1 ... 6 7 8 9 10 [11] 12 13 14 15 16 ... 45  
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Terms of Service - DMCA Agent and Policy - Privacy Policy and Cookies

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines

Page created in 0.086 seconds with 12 queries.