The Good Post Gallery

[Lief 🗽]

 

You must be logged in to read this quote.

With a couple of exceptions maybe, nobody understands why it was essential for you to take money from your parents while you were employed in Utah. Nobody.

Well come on now, he moved across the country to take up a bare subsistence level job, and you think he wouldn't need money from the parents?  If he hadn't had money from the parents he would have been homeless and probably dead.  On the other hand, it was a bad idea to go anywhere or do anything, so they did facilitate that.

Bush, don't listen to these spoiled, hypocritical rich kids.  I understand your condition. 

Just sit tight at home, try not to worry too much.  Cultivate a good relationship with mom, dad and other old people in the community, and eventually someone will find you a job at, say the City Power and Light, or the telephone company (alas I hear the telephone company may have been destroyed, but something along those lines).  What you need is a community - a support network - to find you employment and keep you in it. 

Is there a prison anywhere near you where you could work?  Or any sort of government or regulated-public-utility that might have simple clerking jobs?  Do NOT, under any circumstances, seek employment with 'private' corporations - you are definitely better off sleeping all day in your parents basement.

[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.

[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.

[Lief 🗽]

(this isn't in reply to the post above or anything; just a coincidence)

Hypocrisy is overrated as a vice. Some people are simply confused about what they believe in.

[Lief 🗽]

Mikado seems to have a caricature of science advocates and Rationalism in his head that has no bearing on reality. For instance...

In other words, what I oppose isn't atheism, it's Rationalism and the scientific paradigm itself.  It refuses to keep to itself and expands into fields it can't comprehend, intruding on and smashing literature, music, philosophy, history, economics, and others beneath its weighty models.

I don't think I've ever seen science advocates try to apply it to literature and music in any significant fashion. Sure, we might study human reactions to such things and see how their brains light up, but at no point has science ever had something to say about whether a piece of literature is interesting or a piece of music beautiful.

In regards to philosophy, I suppose it might depend on whether or not the philosophy makes statements of fact that are measurable, but human values aren't something science has anything to say about. You might be a hedonist, and while science may be able to in some fashion be able to determine the benefits and consequences of your hedonism it can't and doesn't try to put them on a scale and determine the worth of those things - only humans can assign 'value' to them.

History and economics... well, sorry Mikado, but science has legitimate reason to be in these fields. Archaeology is valuable in determining our history, and it is both a science and a humanity. How can we determine the age of something we've dug up if we don't use the tools we have developed through science? As far as economics goes, businesses use science all the time. They gather data scientifically and make models because they have been proven to work and increase their profits. Still, science can't necessarily say why humans enjoy certain products.

Science advocates push for science because we want to improve the human condition. We want to make people's lives better. We still enjoy literature, music, poetry, and all of those kinds of things just as much as everyone else.

I'll close with a quote that we science advocates quite favor...

"There is grandeur in this view of life, with its several powers, having been originally breathed into a few forms or into one; and that, whilst this planet has gone cycling on according to the fixed law of gravity, from so simple a beginning endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful have been, and are being, evolved." - Charles Darwin, The Origin of Species

[Lief 🗽]

Nobody's arguing for mandatory guns, Link, you're creating strawmen again.

The problem with removing excess sugar from the American diet is that diet is, inherently, a personal choice. While it may be a bad choice, once you allow the government to interfere in personal decisions (which don't affect anyone else), you open the door for a system that can easily be abused to interfere with your life. We've seen time and time again (in Prohibition, in the War on Drugs) how interference in personal choices has always been a costly and ultimately unsuccessful endeavor.

The government intervenes in personal choices all the time.  You just happened to cherry pick two examples and give your interpretation.  Wearing seatbelts is a personal choice and the government interventions have been a success.

I really doubt if you ban big gulps Colombian cartels, Chicago mobsters, and LA Street gangs are going to take over distribution and murder each other for turf.  I personally don't know what effect the ban would have if allowed to go forward.  You are still permitted to buy multiple drinks if you really want that volume of sugar water.  I think the point is the creep of empty calories is very insidious in the American diet.  If you travel you will realize that other countries are not full of crazy gym fanatics and dieters.  They just aren't trained to get huge drinks and servings at restaurants.  It never occurs to them to gorge themselves.  You speak of choice but the average person is not making a conscious choice.  Through psychology, marketing, and ignorance they are being trained to engage in unhealthy and harmful behavior.  I don't think if you inject someone with heroin for five year in year six if they crave heroin it can be argued to be a "personal choice."

[Lief 🗽]

i don't like the term 'white privilege' for a lot of reasons. and i'm sure the forum considers me an 'extremist' on guns. but let's be honest here: it says a lot that a crowd of mostly white people would feel confident enough to press their luck like this. somehow i doubt a crowd of several hundred black men marching with guns would be received nearly as well by your typical movement conservative. in fact i seem to remember a certain b-movie actor banning 'open carrying' in his state for that exact reason.

[Lief 🗽]

And people say opebo doesn't have healthy attitudes towards sex and relationships.

[Lief 🗽]

The tomato never really made it as a handfruit, but was it the tomato's fault?  I cite Nix as a causative factor, at least in part.  I also think that it was because it wasn't known to the Asians and Europeans and Africans in the pre-Columbian era.  But here in the Americas it was the supreme court that caused the tomato to be relegated to the sad role of saladfruit.

We actually eat tomato as a handfruit in my house.  My son likes them, freshly picked and washed, and so do I.  He's allergic to apples and peaches, so it works out well.  If you look at my fruitbowl right now, you'll find bananas, oranges, and tomatoes. 

[Lief 🗽]

Reckless, treasonous idiots. Having said that, this latest tedious internet hero doesn't seem to have jeopardised anyone's lives, so he at least he's better than Manning in that regard. I still look forward to both being imprisoned (or not, since that will only prolong the orgy of moral outrage).

I have nothing but contempt for Manning and the Greenwaldian teenagers who venerate him, and I'm a bit alarmed by Snowden, who's seeming more and more like a delusional fantasist living every Paultard's dream of "saving internet freedom" - if you read that Guardian article you'll notice he claims he could have taken down the entire US intelligence system in an afternoon. If you believe the NSA would give that level of access to a contractor with a GED... I can't help you.

This whole thing makes me cringe.

[Lief 🗽]

Dear wormyguy,

Thank you for your explanation of how to get rich. Unfortunately I never have good ideas, I don't have the money to enter exclusive universities, I don't want to fake getting along with rich people (or their daddies), don't have time to learn how to program an app because I'm busy trying not to be homeless, and I hate the smell of old people. In fact, I don't even want to be rich. I don't have the motivation or energy to start my own business, be my own boss, or even think of an idea to sell.

I just want to work eight hours a day and get paid more than what I need. I would be interested in buying a house someday, and I promise I don't waste my money. I don't think I should earn as much as those who have exclusive skills. I just want to be comfortable. I have just as much worth to society as the more intelligent, more socially apt, and in fact perhaps I'm better because I'm not cunning, ruthless, or greedy. We live in a first world country. Why should I needlessly suffer when there is plenty of money for everyone? Why should they benefit so many orders of magnitude more than me, doing my small part?

Yours truly,
Most people

Really one of the best posts ever on this forum.

[Lief 🗽]

Mods, please ban Oldies.

[Lief 🗽]

You're so bad at this thread. SO BAD.

[Lief 🗽]

Yeah, but Oldies has that ugly Romney/Ryan nonsense under his blue New Mexico; King doesn't.

[Lief 🗽]

They would work to defeat it because it would be bad for the country. Only liberal Democrats want a single payer system. [citation needed] Most people do have coverage and are happy with it. [citation needed] Most people don't want the government messing with their health coverage. [citation needed] It's only the poorer Americans who want it because they can't afford quality care unless they go to the emergency room or go on Medicaid. The system is expensive in our country because we give much better quality of care than other countries and lawsuits have made things more expensive for the medical field. [citation needed] There is a reason Obamacare failed in public perception and it's because the average person wants nothing to do with it or a single payer system. Anywhere that has tried universal coverage or a single payer system, has immediately lost quality in their care and the wait to be seen by a doctor has skyrocketed. [citation needed]

I think expanding Medicaid to cover more uninsured would be a humane and kind thing for our country to do. Also allowing people to remain on their parents' coverage until age 24 or so and not mentioning pre-existing conditions is a step in the right direction. If companies were allowed to compete across state lines, then competition would rise and prices would drop. Can we please get back to discussing what can be done in regards to private insurance and stop bitching about those who have a higher income than us? [Huh?]

"Only liberal Democrats want a single payer system"

AP/Yahoo Poll, 2007:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

"Most people do have coverage and are happy with it."

16% of Americans don't have coverage - that's extremely high, by first world standards. On top of that, not everyone is secure in their coverage. At the height of the recession, a third of workers were worried about losing their jobs, and nearly half were concerned about cuts in their benefits. If you can't rely on your health insurance being there when you need it, how can you say that you're satisfied with it?

Besides, we're not unique in this respect. A majority of Canadians are satisfied with their healthcare. Australia, with its system of universal coverage, ranks ahead of the United States in terms of patient satisfaction.



"Most people don't want the government messing with their healthcare."



Let's leave aside the ambiguity of this statement and the fact that the government "messes" with our healthcare a great deal and has done so for decades. Read the public opinion polls and study the interviews and it's clear that Americans don't really know what kind of healthcare they want or even what kind of healthcare they already have. And to be honest, why would they? It's an extremely complex policy issue. There's no reason to expect public opinion to guide us to sensible and effective solutions.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

"The system is expensive in our country because we give much better quality of care than other countries and lawsuits have made things more expensive for the medical field."



Really? Identifying the factors behind our failure to control healthcare costs is hardly simple business, but our failure to control costs repeatedly comes to the fore in these discussions. Virtually every medical procedure you can think of is far more expensive in US than it is elsewhere, and in most cases it's not clear that there's any difference in quality.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

"Anywhere that has tried universal coverage or a single payer system, has immediately lost quality in their care and the wait to be seen by a doctor has skyrocketed."



In terms of quality of care, our current system is streets behind:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

The "increased wait times argument" has been demolished repeatedly. Longer wait times occur when there are too many patients or too few doctors. That will occur whether you have a single payer system or not. Virtually no one involved in the health care debate argues that we should try to limit the number of people who can see a doctor in order to decrease wait times for the rest of us. Yet in a free marketeer's utiopia in which everyone had private insurance, wait times would increase because more people would be insured.

"Can we please get back to discussing what can be done in regards to private insurance and stop bitching about those who have a higher income than us? Thank you."

[Lief 🗽]

Summary of Arguments:
"LOCKING UP A MILLION BLACK MEN FOR DRUG CRIMES IS A GOOD THING"
"LOL WHERE ARE YOUR FATHERS BLACK AMERICA?"

[Lief 🗽]

What's funny is that BRTD actually has more of a life than most of the people here who criticize him. Yeah he obviously posts a lot and has some strange obsessions, but he has a job, friends, and what appears to be a social life. Compare that to other posters, like some that spend an entire week posting creepy GIFs of gymnasts.

[Lief 🗽]

Yeah that's an amazing post.

[Lief 🗽]

So because domestic violence rates have fallen dramatically (again, no idea where you're getting this or what population it refers to) then fathers shouldn't bother to stick around? 

Poverty is a foolproof marriage repellant. And if you try to refute that with wholesome stories of ma and pa staying together during the Depression when they lost the farm, I will respond by pointing out that prevailing gender roles and social norms were what prevented marriages in that era from dissolving.

The reality is that women do not "need" a man and men do not "need" a woman in the ways they once did that transcended and took precedence over economic realities.

Who chops the firewood? The man. Nobody - we have gas and electricity.
Who plants the crops? The man. Hispanic migrant workers.
Who guards the homestead? The man. Police and ADT.
Who cooks the meals? The woman. The microwave or the staff at your local restaurant.
Who makes the clothes? The woman. Bangladeshi orphans.
Who keeps you warm at night? My spouse. The guy/girl I bring home from the club on a given night.

We've outsourced most of our husbandly/wifely duties for economic, technological and social reasons over the past 40 or so years. If you don't love someone, you have no reason to stay with them. If you don't like being with someone, you have no reason to stay with them.

If you're poor, you're stressed all the time, tired all the time and arguing about money all the time. That doesn't make you want to be with someone and could very well make you despise them over time.

Why would a working-class/underclass father bother to stick around? He has no way to provide for his family in any meaningful way.

[Lief 🗽]

Yup, came here to post that. Fantastic fact bomb, BK.

[Lief 🗽]

More truth bombs dropped on the pro-Assad folks.

You guys are aware it was the rebels that did the chemical attacks and are framing Assad. We shouldn't get involved at all.

1. The chemical weapons were fired from rockets that the rebels have no indication of possessing the capability to launch
2. Since the start of the conflict the Syrian government has been stockpiling their chemical weapons in a single location to prevent rebels from capturing them
3. The attack was on civilians (and a small group of rebel fighters) in a suburb of Damascus very sympathetic to the rebels
4. The rockets were fired in the middle of an unexpected surprise attack by government forces on the rebels

So the two possibilities here are:

A) The government fired rockets that delivered chemical weapons as part of their offensive

OR

B) The rebels acquired chemical weapons in spite of the government's stockpile efforts, and they managed to rig up an effective launcher system, and aimed it directly at the civilian areas of their only sizeable stronghold in the greater Damascus area, with plans to fire it off and attack their own people just in case the Syrian government someday attacks, trading the lives of thousands of their own people in exchange for making the government look like the bad guys on the international stage and maybe hopefully possibly convincing someone somewhere to intervene against the Syrian government in some fashion


Sorry man but I think A is a bit more likely here.

[Lief 🗽]

I don't necessarily agree with this post, but I think it's an interesting perspective:

Female sports journalists are incredibly common given how sports are male dominated, and the reason why there aren't very many great female politicians.

If Barack Obama were born a girl, she'd probably be an anchor for ESPN or a news network.  Charismatic women with good command of the English language are pushed more into these kind of journalism/show business roles than their male counterparts, who might use charisma as a reason to get into business or law--which is more of a career path for a politician.  There's also more money for that kind of woman on camera than the glass ceiling of business and law. 

Even if you disagree with her politically, someone like Megyn Kelly, for example, could probably have been a firestorm if she had stuck to law and jumped into public service instead of becoming a journalist.  MSNBC and FOX have plenty of women who could make great politicians for both sides.  But they're unelectable in their career paths as broadcast journalists.

At least that's my opinion. 

[Lief 🗽]

The key to successful phone sex is to just let it happen with scenarios and then act like it's happening. Movies do a very bad job at showing this as both parties normally give the scenario instead of letting it happen. You can't force phone sex. I've been doing phone sex for years now and believe I carry some credibility in this. When I worked in an office calling people who wanted to go to school online, I had a potential student on the phone. After talking to her for a little bit I asked what she did for a living and she told me she was a phone actress. I never knew the technical term until then. She embarrassingly laughed and told me what she does. Ironically she wanted to go to school for proctology.

[Lief 🗽]

What is the difference between the Republican Party and the KKE?

One is a delusional party held afloat by denial of the modern day and yearning for an antiquated era. It has no vision how to govern and serves no purpose but to attack the existing governments and mess things up without offering any coherent and workable ideas of its own. It offers no modern day leadership and is stuck in idolizing leaders who were in office decades ago, largely because it offers no new ideas or solutions, just empty rhetoric and slogans and whenever dealt a defeat simply blames the media and the whole system for being unfair and biased against them.

The other is a communist party in a debt-ridden Mediterranean country.

[Lief 🗽]

Even if the debt ceiling is not raised, if by "default" one means defaulting on treasury debt service, that will not happen. Government spending will need to be slashed by 20%, or whatever the cash short fall amount is, but out of the 80% of cash available, debt service will certainly be paid. So there is zero chance given that definition of default. (Grumps this is the proper quote from me for you to save. The other is just the Reader's Digest version of what I meant.)

Why doesn't Fox News simply watch MSNBC if they want to get a good source of accurate news?  I keep seeing these statements posted on the web and I wonder why people don't just watch MSNBC news where it was explained quite clearly that the Treasury computer system simply is not set up to pick and choose what to pay.  I know it is fun for Republicans to trot out simplistic and inaccurate analogies comparing the federal government to a household but it isn't a household.  It is a complex multitrillion dollar global institution that is responsible for taking care of 330 million people both at home and abroad.

Do people simply not have any concept of the number, nature, and variety of checks that go out?  For a party that claims to love efficiency and certainty for big business they really do propose some really complex inefficient ideas that dramatically increase uncertainty.