The Sam Spade Memorial Good Post Gallery

[Joe Republic]

Why was my inclusion here of one of this Gallery's namesake's posts deleted without being reported first?

[Joe Republic]

That was a perfectly acceptable addition to this thread.

Not that it matters.  It'll probably be deleted without notice.

[Joe Republic]

That was a perfectly acceptable addition to this thread.

Not that it matters.  It'll probably be deleted without notice.

The post or the thread?

The post.  Like mine was.

[Joe Republic]

But I never understood why the old Liberal Party began to decline to begin with. If anything, you'd think they would have been a more logical place - in terms of ideology - for supply side economics and neoliberalism to grow in the 1970s and 1980s than the Conservative Party would have been.

I think a better question to ask is why the liberal parties in Canada and United States didn't decline. After all, the patter in most of the west is a conservative party versus a labour party, with other ideologies bringing up the rear.

Liberalism in the way that the original Liberal Party was liberal (free trade, extending the franchise, etc) is just part of what America is. Our Left and Right parties are just extensions of that premise. Old Toryism would require existing institutions in need of defending - there were/are none here: no peerage, no Church, no monarchy. Socialism/social democracy requires a sense of community cohesion that our individualist society of temporarily embarrassed future millionaires lacks. And because those things weren't there, we never had any major issues with fascism or communism, which is why we also lack a European-style center-right/Christian Democracy presence.

We're Americans. The rich want as much money to stay in their private bank accounts as possible, consequences to society be damned. The poor want as much money to flow into their private bank accounts as possible, consequences to society be damned. We're not interested in tradition or class or national identity or the well-being of the community. And the rest of our politics is determined by how we feel about fetuses and guns.

[Joe Republic]

Why was my inclusion here of one of this Gallery's namesake's posts deleted without being reported first?

I probably did. I was on vacation and having to navigate the Forum on my phone. I didn't feel like taking the time to report the post myself (and possibly assess points for it) then delete it, so I just cut out the middle man.

Seriously Joe, I don't remember what post of Spade's you put here, but if it is the one where he ended a disagreement by calling the other poster a fa#$ot, then I regret nothing. That sort of $hit doesn't belong anywhere on the Forum, let alone in a "Good Post Gallery".

Hmm... You mean to say that a very typical post from the guy that the Good Post Gallery is named for was in fact so offensive that it deserved being deleted on sight?  Such a typical post in fact that this particular F-word's usage here became synonymous with him?  How totally unexpected that it did not in fact deserve to be posted in the Good Post Gallery.


http://youtu.be/L_mrNQBLSMU

[Joe Republic]

Can we all agree that this gallery is terrible, and deserves to be rededicated and its funding reallocated elsewhere?

[Joe Republic]

Posting your own lame single sentence post into the GPG, which is reserved for posting other people's well-crafted, thoughtful effortposts?  Wulfric is angling for worst poster on Atlas, it seems.

[Joe Republic]

If you were Clint Eastwood and your neighborhood was the set of a spaghetti Western, I could understand your concern about the ethos of "one shot, one kill". American mythology is founded on similar ideas of frontier masculinity and the trusty firearm with which the hero tames the hostile Frontier. People fantasize about being the protagonist, dealing out justice from the barrel of a Colt .45 (it's what's for dinner), and protecting themselves and their property from thieves and bandits. It seems to me that the decision to arm oneself depends more on the appeal of that script than on a reasonable threat assessment of the risks encountered whilst living in a suburban neighborhood.

People own guns for other reasons, though. I suppose that my neighbor's interest in and ownership of firearms is not that different from my other neighbor's interest in pre-decimal British coinage. From an engineering or historical standpoint, I understand why someone might want to explore how guns are manufactured or the roles they've played in American history. If my neighbor enjoys hunting game or harbors some private delusions about nocturnal marauders sacking our neighborhood, that's his business. I don't see why my one neighbor's hobby deserves Constitutional protection and the other's doesn't, though. 

That said, I'd prefer to live next to the neighbor who owns the expensive coin collection rather than one who fashions himself a "good guy" on the suburban frontier and maintains a private arsenal in his home. It just seems to me that there's a substantial risk of accidental or intentional harm (suicide, curious toddlers, domestic violence, etc.) inherent in owning an MR-15 that doesn't exist, say, in owning a 1914 King George VI silver threepence.

[Joe Republic]

Surely you can't be that stupid, so I have to conclude that you're being ridiculously disingenuous.

It seems to me that you're the disingenuous one. You believe obviously that in those kind of meetings Clinton conspires with the wealthy donors present to dupe the people into voting her and then enforce policies that reward the latter. And you're just frustrated because there isn't a way for that incriminating stuff to come out and help your candidate.
Alas, the truth is much more mundane. I suggest you read Game Change. It contains an interesting anecdote about a 2008 fundraiser with Bill Clinton at the aftermath of Ted Kennedy's endorsement of Obama.

You started this discussion by citing two recent Presidential candidates who got rightfully blasted for making deeply offensive remarks at their fundraisers. Neither you nor I know if Hillary is saying stuff like that too, but you certainly can't exclude the possibility.

So you are curious to know if Hillary called Appalachian whites "rednecks" or if she called Ted Cruz an "asshole".
Me, I have more serious thing to agonize over.

It's pretty important to know what a presidential candidate truly thinks of the people she's running to represent.

One of the saddest and most disturbing things about the Sanders campaign and their supporters is the way they start from a place of utter distrust and assume the worst intentions in everyone, and then demand that their opponent be held to absurdly high standards in order to prove a negative, to prove that the Sanders campaign's dastardly insinuations are not justified.  So most people are ok assuming that Clinton is having normal strategy conversations with her donors at these meetings, just like every presidential candidate ever.  The Sanders people start from the assumption that she's selling out the American people or revealing "what she really thinks", which would obviously be something horrible and campaign-ending, and then now it seems like y'all not only want to demand that she allow them to be recorded, but are saying that it's the patriotic duty of every American to do so and that's how the political process should work.

And the most irritating part is that you only do it on issues where the divide works against Clinton, like here where Sanders doesn't have meetings because he doesn't have friends doesn't have any big donors.  We could just as easily make these disingenuous assumptions about Sanders' behavior and force him to do something degrading or prostate himself to prove that he's not actually a nefarious evildoer, but we don't.

[Joe Republic]

[Joe Republic]

The word is "blackmail": to force or coerce into a particular action, statement, etc.

I keep hearing that the supporters of "Hillary's ball and chain" and also the ball and chain himself are demanding things happen a certain way during the convention or else....

What's up with that?

Hillary is ahead of him in every way. What is so hard to understand about that? She has worked very hard for years to garner the support she has in the Democratic Party. What has Bernie done?

It's not nice to threaten blackmail when you lost the campaign.

Clinton has a majority of the Democratic Party (not necessarily delegates) behind her, according to polls, but that is not enough to win in itself. Sanders supporters like myself want to see a more progressive Democratic candidate and Party. Some will be content to see Clinton adopt a few positions of Sanders at the convention; others will not.

Sanders has caucused and voted with the Democratic Party on a majority of issues since he entered the House in 1991, and has supported the Democratic candidate in every election since, with the possible exception of 2000 (I am not sure about that one).

Look kid, your guy tried and he lost, you don't have a divine right to get what you want no matter what.  The election is Clinton vs. Trump, pick one side or the other.  You don't always get to have your personal perfect candidate to vote for.  If this wasn't your first election maybe you'd understand that that's not how politics works.  Your chance to get that candidate was in the primaries.  There's a whole cottage industry out there of fake candidates who exist only to take advantage of people like you for attention; Jill Stein is just one of them, and she doesn't even represent your views anyway because your views probably include the president being sane, mature, and capable of running the country.

I feel like these Bernie children don't even understand what the presidency is.  It's not some page of a history book where you stamp your manifesto.  It's an actual job that requires a massive toolbox of skills and experiences to perform competently.  By wasting your vote on Donald Trump or Jill Stein you're not just saying "oh I agree with some views of this person", you're saying "I think this person should sit in the Oval Office at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue for the next for years, speak for the entire country, navigate the most challenging and risky situations and make tremendously difficult and consequential decisions on my behalf."  You know perfectly well, deep down, that Hillary Clinton is the candidate you would feel most comfortable having in that position, no matter how much you try to immaturely delude yourself otherwise.

Your vote has tremendous consequences that reach across the entire planet.  Helping Donald Trump by voting for Jill Stein indicates a refusal to accept not just reality but also the consequences of your actions.  You can put your fingers in your ears and pretend it's some noble decision all you like but in your heart you know that if Trump were to win by one vote and people suffered as a result, you would regret it until the day you died.

[Joe Republic]

Christians have been arguing over the proper attire for a worshipper and a place of worship (cue iconoclasm) since it was founded. Which is another one of it's collective pointless distractions.

As for standing during anthems people seem happy to sit on their ass when it plays on tv before sport and stand collectively if in public. Which demonstrates it's a social etiquette and nothing particularly profound.