The Good Post Gallery

[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. 

[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.

[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.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

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.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

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.  

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

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.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

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?

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

Well, neither makes me sad at all, but I voted for the relatively harmless one rather than the servant of genocide and slavery.

How was Thatcher a servant of genocide and slavery?  Shouldn't you show her at least some respect at this time?

All neoliberals were advocating a return to a form of capitalism which clearly kills and enslaves.  This horrible agenda wouldn't be quite so damning if they hadn't also happened to completely succeed in reinstating it.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

Wow this is old but soooooo good. Just ran across it. We all know someone like krazen would never be able to debunk it:

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.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

It's just a hyperbolic way of saying that they'd rather keep the thread only for actual news and updates and not this:

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

Krazen, errors are inevitably going to be made, for which remedies will have to be applied.  The error mentioned here was corrected using due process, so this case proves exactly the opposite of the point you seem to be trying to make.  That you seem to be unable to comprehend such things is what makes people think you are a kook, a troll, or both.  It's a shame as we could use someone here who makes a good case for quite a few of the topics you post on.  Alas, with you here, it is less likely that someone who can competently argue the positions you take will show up lest they be considered a kook or a troll as well. It is a shame that people tend to judge position by the quality of their advocates, rather than by the quality of the facts supporting the position. However since your posts cloud your chosen issues with poor quality in your facts, your advocacy, or both, you tend to lessen the support for the positions you advocate rather than strengthen such support.

Of course, you are not the only person who has posted in this thread that my comments in this post could apply to, but I'm not going to waste my time trying to improve those who rarely manage more than a single line of snark.  You clearly have some talent, I just wish you would make use of it more productively than you do.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

Obviously I don't agree with everything in this post, but the bolded part is quite dead and what I'm submitting here.

For those not in the know, the English Defence League are largely a group of football hooligans and working class racists who claim to oppose radical Islam, and demonstrate peacefully against it. However, these demonstrations tend to become violent, much like football hooliganism, and attacking all Muslims, not just radical Muslims.

HI for me, I'm proud of my country, and would also be proud of the UK if I lived there, but groups like the EDL take their love way too far, and turn patriotism into ugly, ethnic/religious nationalism.

putting aside the barely concealed class snobbery there's nothing inherently ugly about "ethnic/religious nationalism." zionism is "ethnic/religious nationalism" for example, do you oppose that? somehow i doubt you do. they certainly don't. oy vey!

to me the sort of 'patriotism' you speak of is ugly. 'patriotism' (by which i mean 'civic nationalism') at its core is totally superficial and basically everything the post-60s left straw mans nationalism as being. it has no basis other than ideology and essentially state worship. it is idolatry towards pieces of cloth and paper. a few arbitrary lines on a map and 'the constitution/charter/whatever' are not enough as the basis for a nation. you need borders, language and culture. the edl has some real cretins in its ranks and ideological issues but it at least understands that. it at least genuinely respects that. so i'd take your average edl symp any day over the 'respectable conservatives.' hell you supported virgil goode, i shouldn't be explaining this to you. have some consistency at least.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

Huh? There haven't been any posts in here for quite awhile in response to Naso.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

It's astonishing how much Republicans loathe any reform that might make it easier for people to vote. It's as if they believe their own "voter fraud" bullsh**t.

They don't (well, not most of them).  The Republican machine is a fascist organization at its heart.  Sure, they can't ACTUALLY go through with something like that, but power/greed/money is all they know and all they can understand.  Statistics show that Democrats benefit from high turnout and those who don't vote would vote overwhelmingly Democratic.  They understand this, and it is in their best interests (and the best interests of their puppet masters) to quash efforts to ease the burden on voting. 

Anyone who calls themselves a Republican ought to be ashamed at this particular aspect of their party.  The GOP literally tries to make it harder to vote/prevent measures to make it easier everywhere and anywhere they can.  Their evidence is usually a single isolated incident almost always involving a minority. 

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

I hate that Oldiesfreak has the same avatar as King now, so I see a post and think it's King and it turns out to be Oldiesfreak.

So it's not just me with that problem.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

I always consider it rather notable if someone who rarely makes posts of value and usually belongs in the Deluge manages to get off one worthy of inclusion here:

Preventing children under your care from being adopted by qualified families is an exploitative abuse of guardianship powers, and if you as an orphanage are unwilling to do so you cannot claim the moral right to exercise guardianship powers.

The Catholic Church is not going to accept the classification of gay couples as qualified families, so it must leave the adoptions market in states that require it to do so. If there is an example of how government recognition of gay marriage requires religious organizations to agree with it, here it is.

You are using children as helpless pawns in that scenario and deliberately worsening their lives to fit your bigoted worldview.  Denying a child the benefits of an emotionally, socially, and financially supportive home simply because you hate gay people means that you are not qualified to care for children, since you put your own "values" ahead of their well-being.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

It is an unprincipled tautological argument trotted out by idiots.  I've never heard  an articulation of this "I oppose redefining marriage but am alright with civil unions" argument that wasn't a pile of garbage.

For God sakes, just admit you're homophobic or trying to curry favor with homophobes.  You can't believe the law of the land should insult me and then tell me I shouldn't be insulted. 

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

Old, but recently discovered and so very informative. I don't think I've ever seen as much detailed history on this topic as this before:

I have trouble believing that only 1/4 of the forum would have supported the Bolsheviks in 1917, without hindsight/foresight.

You don't know the history. At the time the Bolsheviks were just one of the many sociallist parties, not even the most popular, nor was it even the only Marxist party. A lot, if not most, of the "white" politicians were actually sociallists and/or Marxists themselves.

At the beginning of 1917 the most popular Russian party was the non-sociallist Constitutional Democratic Party ("cadets"). They formed the first Provisional government at abdication. Unfortunately, they did not believe they could do anything until the Constituent Assembley could be elected and convened. In particular, they refused to withdraw from the War. When the telegram from the FM (the party head Milukov) to the allies promising to continue fighting was published in April, the government was forced to resign. During the summer, after they were linked to a military coup attempt, they were banned outright.

When the Bolsheviks took over (overthroughing what was by then a 5-party sociallist coalition), they still allowed an election to the Constituent Assembley to happen (they took over just a couple of weeks prior). They lost, and they lost miserably. The winner of the election was the Sociallist Revolutionary Party ("eser") - a non-Marxist Agrarian Sociallist party, that had always been viewed as the main violent threat to the Imperial Government, since it was linked to a major terrorist organization. Bolsheviks got just under a quarter of the seats, mostly from the military, since they were the only party calling for the immediate withdrawal from the war. Mensheviks (non-Communist Marxist Social-Democrats), other sociallists, Constitutional Democrats (though barely, due to them having been banned for most of the campaign) and a whole bunch of ethnic minority parties were represented as well. Most of the rural vote went to the Sociallist Revolutionaries, most of the working class vote went to Mensheviks. The Bolsheviks took the soldiers' vote.

The Sociallist Revolutionaries split into the more radical "Left SR" and the more moderate "Right SR". Though the Left SR were allied to the Bolsheviks at first, the Right SR still could control the Constituent Assembley. The Assembley was convened right after the start of 1918 and in its first action elected the Right SR Chernov as its Chairman. At the end of the first day of procedings, the Bolshevik guards entered the hall and announced that "the guards are tired". The Assembley was never allowed to reconvene. A demonstration in its favor a week later was met with gunfire.

The first Commie gov't was, actually, a coalition of the Bolsheviks and the left SR. However, unlike the Bolsheviks, the left SR were not willing to conclude peace w/ Germany at any cost. After the Bolsheviks went ahead and surrendered to the Germans Ukraine, a left SR Blumkin (remember, SR had always been terrorists) assassinated the German ambassador von Mirbach in June 1918. The Bolsheviks used this as a pretext to ban the left SR (together with the other opposition parties).

Note, that all of this happened before the actual start of the Civil War (up until then there had been only minor skirmishes). The Civil War started later that summer, after the Bolsheviks went on to create the "Committees of the Poor" in the countryside, charged with confiscating grain from all but the poorest peasants to be redistributed between the village poor and the urban "proletariat". Most of the peasants took this - rightly, since Bolsheviks always openly despised the peasant majority, believing it to be inferior to the urban proletariat - to be an attack on them and rebelled. Of course, the opposition party politicians as well as monarchist generals (as well as many other groups) joined in the rebellions, and the Civil War started.

By the start of the Civil War,  the population had already directly experienced a wave of "Red Terror", the economic disintegration of the "Military Communism", etc. The Bolsheviks were just one of the many sociallist parties, and they had been physically destroying their sociallist opponents, including those, like SR, that had been much more popular and had been much more prominent in the pre-revolutionary anti-monarchist movement. Their primary strength was concentrated among the rank-and-file soldiers, whom they had promised to take out of the World War. They had little support either among the Sociallist-Revolutionary peasants, or among the Social-Democratic workers, or elsewhere.