The Good Post Gallery

[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.

[Lief 🗽]

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

[Zanas]

You really don't have Oldies on ignore y'all ? How can you bear it ?

[Oldiesfreak1854]

I actively discriminate in favour of the candidate I want to win.

[Bacon King]

I actively discriminate in favour of the candidate I want to win.

Look man, you don't get it. Short posts don't belong here, unless they offer an amazingly profound insight. Especially not single sentences. Especially not a random answer to a poll question that basically just repeats the wording of the original post. Nothing against afleitch of course, I love the guy, but you're just doing it wrong soooo badly. If you can't tell from the posts of others, please note for future reference that posts in the Good Post Gallery are supposed to be "Effort Posts," when a forumite crafts a well-thought out and nuanced statement that outclasses all other responses in the thread. When a considerable amount of time, effort, and thought went into the creation of the post, and it's plainly evident when reading it. That's a good post. That's what this thread is for. If you want to post little one-sentence things like what you've been quoting, just put them in your signature- that's why it's there.

Hope this helps you discern what to post here so everyone else doesn't get pissed at you and change the thread title or have quotes with a hundred point font or report your posts to mods

[Grumpier Than Uncle Joe]

This needs memorialized -

I find you repulsive because nearly all the things you do, you do to glorify yourself. The african kids, the dog, etc, are all about you. You sin over and over, scam people, lie, steal and mistreat yourself and others to make yourself feel better, yet you think it's all okay because you pray to god for forgiveness and you think he will forgive.

You have African orphans call you daddy, because your grandma sends them money every month, knowing full and well you will never adopt them, which will only lead to the kids growing up confused and ultimately hurt. You steal money from your parents all the time for frivolous things like porn, trips out to eat, hotel stays, etc.

You refuse to work while living the comfortable lifestyle you wish to have off the backs of your parents, because working seems to be beneath you. You have your poor father do everything while you nap all afternoon every day and seem to be unashamed of it. In addition to that, you are morbidly obese, yet you go to McDonalds nearly every day (that seems to be the only thing you can do on your own), and refuse, despite all the technology at your fingertips, to educate yourself on proper diet that would benefit you and your sick mother, because, well, it wouldn't be about you anymore, and that's not about to happen. 

A dog was abandoned on your property, and instead of trying to find it a home, you keep it because you want a dog to call you daddy, knowing full and well you intend to leave it behind in a year, like you left your cat before it. Not only that, the dog lives outdoors in the Oklahoma heat and you only go out to see it once in a while. Oh, and it took you weeks to figure out what sex it was. Sorry, I also don't care about what dogs and humans did in the old days. This isn't the stone ages.

Finally, you claim to be a Christian and a follower of Jesus, yet you only follow the parts of the Bible that suit you while ignoring all the other parts you don't agree with, like treating your body well, working honestly, loving your neighbors, etc. But you think it's all okay because you will be forgiven despite the fact you embody nearly all of the seven deadly sins.

The honest truth is, I have never come across a bigger hypocrite than you, Bushie, and I hate to say that because I used to think you had your heart in the right place. I used to want to see you succeed, but it's difficult to want that anymore because you yourself have no interest in succeeding. You only wish to glorify yourself in your own mind and stroke that sense of sense importance that we can all feel in your words.

I don't mean to come across as harsh, but that is the honest truth. You've become a monster, and I know I'm not the only one that feels this way, and I don't like feeling this way either.

[Paul Kemp]

I actively discriminate in favour of the candidate I want to win.

Look man, you don't get it. Short posts don't belong here, unless they offer an amazingly profound insight. Especially not single sentences. Especially not a random answer to a poll question that basically just repeats the wording of the original post. Nothing against afleitch of course, I love the guy, but you're just doing it wrong soooo badly. If you can't tell from the posts of others, please note for future reference that posts in the Good Post Gallery are supposed to be "Effort Posts," when a forumite crafts a well-thought out and nuanced statement that outclasses all other responses in the thread. When a considerable amount of time, effort, and thought went into the creation of the post, and it's plainly evident when reading it. That's a good post. That's what this thread is for. If you want to post little one-sentence things like what you've been quoting, just put them in your signature- that's why it's there.

Hope this helps you discern what to post here so everyone else doesn't get pissed at you and change the thread title or have quotes with a hundred point font or report your posts to mods

[opebo]

Guys, keeping a dog outside isn't going to kill it. Do you think dogs didn't exist before air conditioning? As long as she has shade and plenty of water, she will survive 105 degrees let alone 95 degrees. Hate to burst your upper middle class bubble, but there are plenty of people who survive in those sorts of temperatures.

[Napoleon]

Vermont was never really a battleground state because it's pretty homogenous. It's basically full of white, small town, left leaning moderates and liberals. There's really no racial, ethnic, religious or regional divide that could make the state competitive for both parties. At least not like Florida or Ohio. What you saw in the 1980s and 1990s was the majority of the state's voters shifting parties.

I really believe that a state has to be diverse to be a battleground state. New Hampshire, in my opinion, is not a battleground state, but a swing state, due to a large number of independents. Bush did really well with those independents in 1988 but since then most of them have voted for the Democrat, which is why NH is left leaning now. That's the case with Vermont but to a much greater extent, benefiting Dems.

A battleground state isn't as much about persuading moderates as it is about getting your base out to the polls, so it's like a battle. Each candidate has a sizable "army" throughout the state and the battle consists of registering voters and going to the polls. To be crass, the battle in Ohio was between Obamaphone lady and Joe the Plumber. Which bastardized version of the average Obama or Romney voter will win the state? A state like Vermont just doesn't have the same contrast, so it will never be battleground state in my opinion.

[Napoleon]

My question to all the Republicans who wonder why I don't vote for their party:

Why would I vote for politicians who think I mattered more when I was a cluster of cells in my mother's uterus than I do now that I'm a living, breathing human being?

Why would I vote for politicians who think keeping an embryo alive is a Manichean battle of good and evil, but aren't remotely disturbed if, after that embryo grows, develops and is born, it doesn't have enough food to eat or the ability to go to a doctor?

"...for her, the unborn child was far more important than the actual child. Having gone through hundreds of her speeches, I have wondered, when compared to the unborn child, if the actual child mattered to her at all."
-Aroup Chatterjee, speaking of Mother Theresa

Republicans will go to the ends of the Earth to protect the unborn child even if those of us who have been born must suffer in the process. Nothing they do suggests to me that they have any interest whatsoever in those of us, child or adult, who have already been born. They're not pro-life at all. They're simply pro-birth.

[Beet]

You know, BRTD, for a lot of people cultural identity is a powerful tool to avoid getting absorbed into a dominant, homogenizing unmarked category from which they will then feel that they can set themselves apart only by devoting themselves to posturing using personal musical taste, fashion sense, and so on.

[Oldiesfreak1854]

If Jesus were to want people to abstain from work one day a week, I'd imagine that like any observant Jew, he'd want it to be Saturday.

[tik 🪀✨]

Mind = blown

[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."

[Хahar 🤔]

Streets behind. Excellent.

[tik 🪀✨]

That was epic. I'm smiling like an idiot.

[Oldiesfreak1854]

Not a bad president, but the whole "martyr" deal made him out to be "one of the greats". He's somewhat overrated, but not as overrated as some think.

[traininthedistance]

You're advocating major tax hikes on the poor... and then when people, who have a genuine concern in lifting the poor out of poverty, bring that up... you claim it's a "populist move" you'd expect from the Koch brothers?

Do you have any idea how ridiculous that sounds?

Beside the fact that you would just alienate the poor and cause a backlash.

Way to completely ignore my second-to-last paragraph.

I definitely skimmed over that part.  But trust me... TNF is not in the pockets of the Kochtopus

He, like me, has a genuine concern for the poor that correctly comes before concern for the environment for one reason:

Poor people are terrible for the environment. 

Once people are fed, clothed, and sheltered... THEN they have the time to worry about the environment.

And if it takes more fossil fuels being burned to raise the poor out of poverty... then so be it.

As a society, we decide to tax and subsidize all kinds of things.  These choices always have a larger impact on people who are on the bottom rung of the ladder because they have no economic cushion. So, a tax on fuel is not at all unique in that respect.  Rather, your argument is an argument against taxing anything.       

Yet, burning fossil fuels produces negative externalities.  When someone drives a car, they don't adequately pay for the pollution they produce.  Thus, we have subsidized fossil fuels in this country so as to lead to non-socially optimal overuse and overproduction.  Gas taxes don't even lead to internalizing the cost of fossil fuel use because we use them to build free public roads for private cars.  So, really we're in effect subsidizing fossil fuels when we should be pricing the negative externalities from their use. 

We could gradually allow our taxes on fossil fuels reflect their actual negative externalities and subsidize other goods required by poor folks so as to leave them no worse off.  And perhaps some poor people would be worse off, like those who commute long distance via car.  But, that's just how the cookie crumbles.  Nobody has a right to have their specific inefficient lifestyle subsidized by the rest of the country.

[Oldiesfreak1854]

I completely agree, WalterMitty.  He has tried so many things that a lot of the experimental stuff he did was atrociously horrible.  And I also agree about the live performances.  Neil has done some great arrangements on albums with various artists and bands, but for my money, Neil is by far at his best on a stage by himself with a Martin and one amp.  If there are better live solo recordings than the Live at Massey Hall concert album of 1971, I haven't heard them yet.

And yeah, Oldiesfreak, Neil had a weirdly cordial relationship with Steve Jobs.  The fact that Jobs made a fortune off if digitizing music while knowing damn well that vinyl sounds infinitely better tells one something.   

[traininthedistance]

The road is designed to safely transport cars at the posted speed limit.  It is a bit disingenuous to call all roads a "multi-use corridor" on a road that sees 99.9% autos or trucks.

The law treats almost all roads other than limited-access highways as multi-use corridors, and plenty of people - primarily children, the poor, and the elderly, in many places - use them in this fashion. Motorists just cannot assume the road is theirs exclusively.

We're not just talking about bike-riders and pedestrians, either. I grew up in a rural area where four-wheelers, snowmobiles, farm equipment, Amish carriages, and even lawnmowers and golf carts were common on many of our roads (although the last two obviously aren't street legal). You can complain about them as much as you want as a motorists, but they'll still be there, and you need to watch out for them unless you want to have blood on your hands.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Very few American cities offer enough bike infrastructure that it's convenient for a cyclist to get around while avoiding areas of high automobile traffic. (And believe me, almost all cyclists will do so if they can.) But it's unreasonable to expect that high-traffic locations, other than limited-access highways, will ever be free of everything other than automobiles.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

 
What is a "second class form of travel"?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I don't have to drive often, but it's still an occasional routine for me. I do my best to minimize the amount of driving in my life, of course, and I've made real sacrifices to achieve that, but doing without it completely would be highly inconvenient. I'm not living in the automobile slums (and I realize how fortunate I am not to be), so it's possible to get around without one most of the time, but living without a vehicle is not easy or efficient by any measure. (Although plenty of people here - again, mostly the poor and not some imagined carless hipster aristocracy - do manage to do it.)

I realize that most people can't give up their cars, and I don't expect them to. But most people could be making choices that lead them to drive less. Most people could behave more respectfully toward cyclists, pedestrians, and other drivers when they're behind the wheel. Most people could be driving a smaller vehicle, and many people could afford to have only one or two family vehicles rather than two or three. Behavior can only ever change around the margins.

[Oldiesfreak1854]

BRTD is known to be:

The reincarnation of Hitler
A well known necrophile
He has a history yelling obscene words after kindergarders
He has a good taste in music

See I can also make sh**t up about strangers on the internet.

[Snowstalker Mk. II]

GO AWAY

[memphis]

I didn't think this particular poster would end up in this thread, but here we are. Life is surprising sometimes.

It's a great representation of our country. Nothing says America better than fast food. Unless you're taking your sports car through the drive-thru, pay with a credit card, and also order soda while wearing jeans and a t-shirt.

[Antonio the Sixth]

As a feminist, this is the pro gun myth that I absolutely detest the most out of all the others.

The answer is a whistle, because most rapes are acquaintance rapes (not Trayvon Martin jumping out of the bushes in New York's dark alley like in the movies), which means it's someone that I trust. Which means he'll be able take my gun away from me, or get it before I have.

The facts:
1. women living in a home with one or more guns were three times more likely to be murdered; for women who had been abused by their partner, their risk of being murdered rose fivefold if the partner owned a gun. (http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/blog/2013/mar/25/guns-protection-national-rifle-association)
2. women who purchased guns were 50% more likely to be killed by an intimate partner. (http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/blog/2013/mar/25/guns-protection-national-rifle-association)
3. In 2010, nearly 6 times more women were shot by husbands, boyfriends, and ex-partners than murdered by male strangers. (http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2013/01/pro-gun-myths-fact-check)
4. A woman's chances of being killed by her abuser increase more than 7 times if he has access to a gun. (http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2013/01/pro-gun-myths-fact-check)
5. One study found that women in states with higher gun ownership rates were 4.9 times more likely to be murdered by a gun than women in states with lower gun ownership rates. (http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2013/01/pro-gun-myths-fact-check)
6. Women are far more likely to support gun control than men. The gender gap on this issue is far bigger than abortion. (http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2013/04/guns-gender-gap-polls.php)
7. Ask Hadiya Pendleton, Gabrielle Giffords, Christina Taylor Green, Jessica Ghawi, Rachel D'Avino, Victoria Soto, Dawn Hochsprung, etc. how guns made them better off and safer from MALE violence.

Oh right, the gun rights folks don't care about actual women.

Enjoy this empowered woman below.

[Grumpier Than Uncle Joe]

Beet is a girl?