The New and Improved Sam Spade Good Post Gallery.

[Torie]

I suspect Grumps is trolling. He needs to nurture his deplorable image.

[Grumpier Than Uncle Joe]

Still a classic:

I thought that that was fake and it's real https://twitter.com/HillaryClinton/status/791263939015376902 Wow. Even if posted by a staffer, it sends a message of extreme hubris and that is one of the reasons Hillary lost in the end.

Anyway, happy birthday Hillary. Now go away and let new voices take the lead. (Voted for her (reluctantly) before Atlas jumps me on this comment).

Couldn't help lol at this response to that tweet

[Grumpier Than Uncle Joe]

ICE did the right thing. Unfortunately, being a sick child does exempt one from the law, nor should it. Don't forget that the reason why her parents weren't in the medical transport with her was that they knew about the immigration checkpoint it would be going thru. Also, as an illegal immigrant, the child never should have been on Medicaid to begin with. This is not the case that those who favor relaxed immigration laws in this country want highlighted. It speaks directly to the concerns that those want to close the borders have. Her parents came here illegally specifically to get their child care at the expense of our government and our taxpayers. Both she and her parents should be deported, and I speak as someone who thinks DACA should've become law long ago and that we should increase the amount of legal immigration allowed.

[Grumpier Than Uncle Joe]

Guys. This is not about sexism. This is about dementia, pure and simple. His brain is addled. I don't mean in an old-fashioned kind of way were people that generation think it's okay to call black people colored. I mean most days he probably, well, doesn't know what day it is.

Again, it doesn't make what he did right. But before we talk about assault, which is a crime, let's also remember that mental incompetency is required before someone to stand trial. Hectically, what he did is he misdemeanor sex offense at least under Ohio law. If I were back in the prosecutor's office I would never want to have to try to prove he was mentally sound enough to stand trial. And if I was his defense attorney I would be running red lights to get to the courthouse to file request for a competency exam.

This is not about tolerance for sexual misconduct like Harvey Weinstein and a certain president. And nor is it about social liberals and feminism being up an arm like a couple of rape apologist assholes on this thread try to turn it into. It is a very sad case of a guy who probably some days choirs why he hasn't seen his father in a while, as he's unable to realize the man died decades ago. My grandmother who is almost exactly Bush's age had the same conversation with me just a couple months ago when I attended my step grandfather's funeral.

So can we simply chalk this up as the actress was perfectly justified in feeling offended and violated, and former President Bush sadly isn't really sound enough to know what he's doing.

With God as my witness there's half a chance he momentarily thought it was a young Barbara Bush. Anyone needs a further picture of my explanation find the Mad Men episode where January Jones's character had to fend off a groping from her Alzheimer ridden father who mistook her at the breakfast table for his wife

[FEMA Camp Administrator]

I've had a lot of sex in my life but never once smoked marijuana.

The fact I've been psychiatrically diagnosed as "psychotic" makes me think it wouldn't be a very pleasant experience for me, plus my religion says it's wrong.

I don't feel like I'm missing out though, my parents smoke marijuana and I remember when I was a child they always were horrible to me when they were high. They enjoyed scaring me and screaming at me when they were high on it.

I don't mind people who don't have children doing it, they typically don't hurt anyone else with it, but I feel like it is immoral and evil to smoke marijuana if you're in a household with children.

[SamTilden2020]

Anyways, aside from their support of Paula Jean, I have nothing against IceSpear, not to mention my ignore list is clean.

IceSpear is not plural.

[TDAS04]

The left has to choose. Either you have universal healthcare or you let the whole world into the country. Can't have both, not in the long run. But emotional stories about children always work wonders for the immigration lobby.

Ultimately however, this fails the morals of most thinking leftists. Most left-wingers want equality of opportunity, to allow all people to reach their potential and provide for their families regardless of the situation they are born in; and the reality is the global border regime (in the long term) entrenches division and, yes, toxic identity politics.

Emotional stories are useful because it serves to personalise a grim reality that we chose to ignore. I know why we all wince, and some people here splutter and complain; it's really no different from the guilty feeling you get as a Westerner when you read about third world sweatshops. If we are to accept that hard borders are not just a present aberration, but a permanent fixture of society; we have to accept these stories - people's entire lives altered and ensnared by pen-pushing bureaucrats, families pulled apart by arbitrary decisions by elites, people who have not done anything "wrong" from a moral standpoint being considered criminals and the entrenchment of global inequality and poverty -  as a permanent reality.

And I'm not saying that's inherently wrong. Maybe you've weighed up the options - you believe a welfare state will immediately collapse upon looser borders (rightly or wrongly, although it is hilarious how often people will state this as a FACT while providing no actual evidence), and this is worth the aforementioned, err, problematic realities of borders. That's fair enough. But it's not a good look to choose to be blind because you find reality inconvenient.

[DavidB.]

Same. I'm still awaiting my new voter registration card in the mail after leaving the party. I don't want to be associated with those people. Same mindset as you'd imagine a liberal Republican to possess; no thanks.

I sympathize a lot with these coal miners. Not only were they sold the myth that coal jobs would return, but even if they didn't believe that what other options are truly viable for them? Yes, this one man in the article is 33, but what about the rest of the coal miners who're rejecting retraining? Making such a transition simply isn't easy, especially when you likely come from a long line of coal miners, you recognize that coal mining is the only decent paying job in your community, and you probably don't know anyone in or anything about these new fields. And if there are no jobs to be found in your local area, what're you supposed to do? Uproot yourself from a community in which your family may have lived for generations? Try to sell your home (good luck) and relocate to a costlier urban area? And not to mention the limited or total lack of income obtainable during retraining, which makes providing for a family incredibly difficult.

To just shout at them: "do this or you deserve to suffer!" Is no different whatsoever from the standard right-wing mantras of "pull yourself up by your bootstraps" and "quit being lazy." It takes absolutely no consideration of the human condition, of the psychology behind their individual circumstances, the complexity of their situation, and the fact that this crisis has been caused by avoidable factors that are ultimately traceable back to the careless exploitation and disregard of significant segments of America (geographically and socially). What's been done to Appalachia is hardly different than what has happened to inner cities and the Rust Belt; they faced rapid growth, mass industrial exploitation, then the industries became increasingly automated and subjected to pressure from low-wage foreign competition, and then no level of the US government has taken accountability for the mass crises these policies create and inflict upon its citizens. Instead, the blame is shifted onto the individuals involved, as if all of these people had any say whatsoever in how these industries functioned, how automation occurred, where investment would go, or anything.

And now, when they're already suffering from declining life expectancy, surging mortality rates, drug addiction, alcoholism, chronic and intergenerational poverty, and the sting of austerity, deregulation, and diminishing social welfare programs, the response from the better-off parts of America are condescension at best, and visceral hatred at worst. Anyone who blames these individuals is falling for the right-wing myth of "personal accountability" and "individual responsibility," which hardly applies to this situation at all. Why not just go shout at the homeless that their condition is all their fault or tell folks in blighted neighborhoods that their poverty is a failure of their families? It's literally no different, except maybe these people are branded in the liberal imagination with a scarlet T because they belong to the "wrong party."

[Beet]

^^^

It feels excessive to post another post by the same poster on [roughly] the same topic here, but...

American liberals are truly awful.

It's disorienting to read ostensibly left-leaning people sh**tting on coal miners for not getting on their bike and looking for work as if they're Norman Tebbit.  

It's even more disorienting to see maroon avatars only come out of the woodwork when the topic is about the plight of poor white men.

There are pretty of maroon avatars that criticise conservatives about the plight of poor minority groups across the country, it's only the fact that now maroon avatars have to criticise Thatcherite neo-liberals on the plight of the rural white poor.

I don't think IceSpear is even cognizant of the motivation behind our position on this issue or why we so much detest his position. He genuinely sees himself as being on the true left side which, from his perspective, I can somewhat understand. But he's mistaken though.

IceSpear is highlighting and strongly rebuking what he perceives as the rampant racism among the White working-class that motivate them to vote for right-wing, racist politicians like Donald Trump due to cultural/racial grievances. He's not entirely incorrect on this issue. There is a significant element of racism that motivates many within the White working-class. IceSpear is also correct in noting the structural inequalities of White privilege and how even the White poor have particular (relative) benefits when compared to, for example, the African American poor.

However, what IceSpear gets wrong is that he (a) is basing his understanding of White working-class motivations on voting results, which isn't an accurate depiction of this demographic group since it has low turnout levels due to alienation among large swaths of these Americans. Bigots are simply more motivated to vote than non-bigots, especially when those non-bigots simply see both parties as corrupt and voting pointless since it won't help their families. He also seems to (it's implied in his posts) believe that (b) the White working-class is more bigoted than other Whites in America, which is simply not true based on Psychological studies. IceSpear also assumes that (c) White privilege provides the White poor and working-classes with some substantially greater position over minorities in the same socioeconomic position, which allows him to disparage them in a way that he would never when discussing minorities. And he also seems to believe that (d) those of us on the Left are supporting White privilege by focusing on White working-class persons.

Let me tell you that we aren't focusing on the White working-class due to them being White. We're doing it because we notice the exceptional hostility directed towards these folks and we perceive them as a disempowered, disadvantaged group being attacked by a more powerful, wealthier group. We prioritize class-based issues since that's the primary center of power in our society - class status. Race, gender, sexuality, and so on are unquestionably important, but it's class that's the most significant of these intersectional systems of power. That's not to downplay the importance of things like institutional racism since they need to be addressed immediately, but we want to see the focus placed on all of the working class when discussing economic issues and the plight of the poor and working class. Dividing up the working class, whether through White racism or attacks upon Whites, isn't going to unify us along class lines against the mutual enemy of all workers, the ones who benefit from division - the upper class. So long as the workers remain divided, they're easy to exploit.

[Grumpier Than Uncle Joe]

Trump = Troll In Chief.  And we fall for it by having thread after thread about whatever his latest word vomit is. He's laughing his ass off at us.

Ha ha!

He really is a "troll" when you think about it.  He knows it, too!

What I will say is that, as a Christian, a male head of household (paycheck-wise), a law-abiding citizen, I believe that Donald Trump has far more respect for me, personally, than Hillary Clinton.  The "Deploriables" comment was meant for folks like me, because of our social conservatism, which was unjustly and dishonestly portrayed as something else by Hillary and by her supporters.  So, yes, I'm glad to be considered one of Trump's "Deplorables".  A flawed man is The Donald, to be sure.  But I won't vote for a candidate whose actions convince me that she has contempt for me, personally.  That's a lesson Hillary Clinton, a sneering elitist, has never learned, and hasn't to this day.

[Kamala]

You apparently forgot to include that it is also required that an individual f*** a 14 year-old child to be "saved." And when others in your congregation also do this, give them a big "pat-on-the-back" and an "atta-boy."
And then people wonder why the Christian religion (all religions for that matter) is on a severe and steady decline.

You have no idea what it means to be born again. Keep your bigotry to yourself.

What he said isn't that off-base.

It's not a matter of hypocrisy, it is a matter of distrust. Evangelicals feel so abused by the media and the elites that they refuse to believe anything coming out of the media. Conservative media and the GOP do not help the situation either, misinforming the people so that they will still turn out for whatever reptile politician will reliably pass tax cuts and cut social spending, while themselves exercising poor moral values. Of course, there are some horrific actions committed by evangelical leaders that are not appropriately dealt with - it happens in every religious or social community - but Evangelicals are uniquely branded as hypocrites when such events occur.

When you feel cornered and oppressed, you may find yourself sharing a bunker with people you may not be proud to be in the company of. It's very hard to convince people that they need to kick that other person out.

Oppressed?  Give me a break.  Is anyone calling for an Evangelical Christian ban?  Is the President of the United States calling you a terrorist?  Do people assume you're a member of a terrorist organization every time some self-righteous theocratic prick gets caught with his pants down?  Don't play oppression olympics here.  Do not even go there.

[they don't love you like i love you]

That post doesn't belong in this thread named after the utter creep that it is that is properly only used by fellow sexist creep Grumps most of the time instead of the proper thread that Grumps can't handle due to being named after a woman.

[Santander]

That post doesn't belong in this thread named after the utter creep that it is that is properly only used by fellow sexist creep Grumps most of the time instead of the proper thread that Grumps can't handle due to being named after a woman.

I use it too. Plead guilty on the sexist creep part, though.

[Grumpier Than Uncle Joe]

That post doesn't belong in this thread named after the utter creep that it is that is properly only used by fellow sexist creep Grumps most of the time instead of the proper thread that Grumps can't handle due to being named after a woman.

I use it too. Plead guilty on the sexist creep part, though.

Will I become BRTD's next obsession?  WooHoo!

[Santander]

That post doesn't belong in this thread named after the utter creep that it is that is properly only used by fellow sexist creep Grumps most of the time instead of the proper thread that Grumps can't handle due to being named after a woman.

I use it too. Plead guilty on the sexist creep part, though.

Will I become BRTD's next obsession?  WooHoo!

For once he'd be obsessed with a poster who is of voting age.

[they don't love you like i love you]

That post doesn't belong in this thread named after the utter creep that it is that is properly only used by fellow sexist creep Grumps most of the time instead of the proper thread that Grumps can't handle due to being named after a woman.

I use it too. Plead guilty on the sexist creep part, though.

Will I become BRTD's next obsession?  WooHoo!

For once he'd be obsessed with a poster who is of voting age.

Gully Foyle and jfern are voting age.

[fhtagn]

That post doesn't belong in this thread named after the utter creep that it is that is properly only used by fellow sexist creep Grumps most of the time instead of the proper thread that Grumps can't handle due to being named after a woman.

I use it too. Plead guilty on the sexist creep part, though.

Will I become BRTD's next obsession?  WooHoo!

1. Are you a child?
2. Are you trans?

If your answer to any of the above questions is "no",  I wouldn't get your hopes up

[Grumpier Than Uncle Joe]

That post doesn't belong in this thread named after the utter creep that it is that is properly only used by fellow sexist creep Grumps most of the time instead of the proper thread that Grumps can't handle due to being named after a woman.

I use it too. Plead guilty on the sexist creep part, though.

Will I become BRTD's next obsession?  WooHoo!

1. Are you a child?
2. Are you trans?

If your answer to any of the above questions is "no",  I wouldn't get your hopes up

[President of the great nation of 🏳️‍⚧️]

That post doesn't belong in this thread named after the utter creep that it is that is properly only used by fellow sexist creep Grumps most of the time instead of the proper thread that Grumps can't handle due to being named after a woman.

I use it too. Plead guilty on the sexist creep part, though.

Will I become BRTD's next obsession?  WooHoo!

1. Are you a child?
2. Are you trans?

If your answer to any of the above questions is "no",  I wouldn't get your hopes up

Damn, I'm both and BRTD still isn't obsessed with me.

[Grumpier Than Uncle Joe]

Already happening.

[Sprouts Farmers Market ✘]

Basically Mugabe was going to give his wife Grace power and the boys club in the army said no. The tragic irony for the wife is that the very same mortality of her sponsor that would have given her power is also the reason she has lost power. It’s like what happened to Jiang Qing in 1976. This is why feminists advocate independence for women, even though it’s easier just to snag a man.

[IceSpear]

And this is the kind of sh**t that gets me:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

So exactly how do you "find out what's going on, on your own"? Do you grab a notepad and ride up to Washington, conducting interviews yourself? Do you begin to diligently research legislation as introduced by reading through each bill line-by-line and comparing it to the statements from both sides of the aisle?

No, your lazy ass sits in your computer chair, isolated in your echochamber of social media while googling the simplest terms possible to get the "news" that corresponds to your preconceived biases, applying the most ridiculous and conspiratorial levels of scrutiny to any perspective that doesn't make you feel warm and fuzzy inside while accepting literally anything at face value that does. In other words, being a sucker for "the media (that isn't)" that spoon-feeds you positive reinforcement.

These people truly are the scourge of the earth and will be the death of civilization if they're allowed to continue with their nonsense. Both society and the gene pool would be much better off without them.

[Santander]

I think all of us who supported Sam Spade from the leftist assaults have now been vindicated.

[Grumpier Than Uncle Joe]

I think all of us who supported Sam Spade from the leftist assaults have now been vindicated.

His Franken thesis, in case you missed it:

What I learned about Al Franken...
« on: December 25, 2008, 01:31:08 pm »   
 
No reason to make this longer than need be, so I'll start from the top.  I'd prefer not to have to do this, but...

As I've mentioned before, most of my relatives are from the South.  However, I do have an aunt who lives in NYC (Queens exactly).  She's not blood-related, but she married my blood-related uncle who was a bit actor who moved to New York, and who unfortunately passed away a number of years because of a freak accident.  She was actually the more financially successful of the two and has not remarried since his death.

Anyway, she was always my favorite aunt when I was a child because she always sent me the best gifts.  And since I've moved to NYC, I always try to see her every so often, which is often difficult considering her schedule and mine.

One of those times was a couple of weeks before the election this year when I had lunch with her.  Naturally, the conversation turned to politics and Obama-McCain.  Eventually, I mentioned Al Franken and she said "Don't get me started there.  What an outright disgusting sicko perv!"  I asked why...  She said, "Well, I guess you're old enough now to know these types of things..." As follows...

One day, sometime in 1976 or 1977 (she doesn't remember the year), but it was in October, she was riding the subway back into Manhattan in the early evening to finish some stuff at work.  The train was fairly empty.  A guy sat down in the seat next to her and started talking to her.  She responded.  Well, this person was Al Franken.

After a couple of minutes, he started to try and pick her up, using some lines which she told me were "lame".  I should mention that she hadn't met my uncle yet - they didn't meet until 1980 or get married until 1982.  She didn't say whether was actually single at the time.  I didn't ask.  Anyway, she thought he looked like a weirdo, not to mention that his eyes looked a bit glazed over, and she said "No thanks."  He kept pressing and she said no.

I'm not going to go into details as to what happened next after this insistence, but let's say that the groping and grabbing done by Franken done towards certain private regions of my aunt would probably constitute sexual harassment today, if not more.  It didn't constitute much back in those days.  Anyway, as he did this for a few seconds, my aunt pushed him off, said "Get away you f-ing creep," which he did and ran quickly off the next stop.  She never saw him again (well, except on television).
The only person on the forum who I've already told this was MW08, because he asked insistently on the forum, but I know I told him only the essentials (not the back story and a few of the details). 

This is all I'm going to say about it.  And I don't want commentary, so the thread gets locked.

I see no reason to think about supporting a political party who has a creep like this in their midst, and allow him to be anywhere near government.  Also, I feel like getting involved in politics in some way to see if, in some way, I can prevent people like this from getting into positions of power in the future.  That's the reason why this will lead to less time on the forum.  We'll see whether I can sustain either of those things (successfulness on the perv front is probably an illusion), but I certainly feel it to an extent.

Of course, maybe all political parties do have a certain amount of creeps, and that's probably true, but when it affects a close family member, you tend to feel a bit more involved.  I can't help but feeling a good bit angry whenever Al Franken is mentioned now.  Maybe that'll pass, it probably won't.

I believe I've said my piece, however short it may be.

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

I probably shouldn't say this, but I do have a VERY unpopular opinion...
Viewing child porn should not be illegal, however obviously making or distributing it should be highly illegal as it already is.

You should chamge your opinion on this.

By viewing it you contribute to a demand for it, which necessarily creates a demand for the sexual assault of children.  Furthermore, even if there is no obvious sexual assault of children in the material, chances are said children were either coaxed into performing by predators who intend to distribute the material or the material was leaked by the originally intended recipient and distributed.

There is literally no case where a production of such material has knowingly and consensually been produced by all parties involved for people in general to view.  First and foremost because children can not meaningfully consent.

I do, however, believe children who produce such material should not be held criminally liable for it as they sometimes are.