The Good Post Gallery

[Antonio the Sixth]

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.

[Lief 🗽]

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.

[Snowstalker Mk. II]

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.

★★☆☆☆

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

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.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

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.

[opebo]

...you know what the difference is between Jews and Baptists?  The Jews commit major fraud, and the Baptists commit petty fraud.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

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.

[morgieb]

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'

[Antonio the Sixth]

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."

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

...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. 

[Kaine for Senate '18]

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 Silence and the Scorpion: 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!!!

[Antonio the Sixth]

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.

[Obamanation]

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.

[Atlas Has Shrugged]

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.

[fezzyfestoon]

Good submission, Nix, Frankn's post is phenomenal.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

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.

[Kaine for Senate '18]

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.

[Lief 🗽]

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 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.

[Antonio the Sixth]

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

[dead0man]

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.

[opebo]

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.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

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.

[memphis]

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.

[Platypus]

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)

[memphis]

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.