StrangeSox

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Aug 24, 2011 -> 04:50 PM) Yglesias responds to The National Review and the "Depravity of the Poor" For instance, Chase can have you wrongly arrested for fraud for trying to deposit a legitimate check from Chase. If you're living on the margins, you've got no room for error. This can lead to you losing your job and your car. More follow-up, this time from a reader of Sullivan's blog Really? $200 a month for food is going to create a cycle of dependency? People would go out and get a job but they just don't want to give up that free six and a half dollars a day of food? The minimum wage in Michigan is $7.40/hr, and you think people are not working because you're giving them less than that a day in food assistance? If there really are people with such an epic level of laziness I would suggest that the threat of starvation will not magically turn them into hardworking, moral citizens. I like capitalism. I believe it is very effective and I value the freedom that it brings. But free markets are not bags of pixie dust that can be sprinkled on all of societies problems, and all of the failures of the market cannot be blamed on the moral failings of the less fortunate.

tl;dr

you have the power

our terrible patent system is why google bought motorola mobile

QUOTE (Y2HH @ Aug 25, 2011 -> 04:54 PM) You took that more seriously than it was meant, too. Not possible, I didn't actually read the post.

QUOTE (God Loves The Infantry @ Aug 25, 2011 -> 04:28 PM) Couldn't tell ya. If I were to guess, I'd say they set very basic parameters and military leaders come up with the specifics. After all, civilians aren't going to have the battlefield knowledge/experience to create specific guidelines. Congress was reviewing them but it doesn't read like they set them? Another Washington Times article laid the blame for the restrictiveness on the military's agreement to abide by some of the Afghan government's rules. What I'm getting at is this seems like it was another posturing vote, giving an opportunity to thump chests about supporting the troops with an ultimately meaningless measure.

I know, I was poking fun at it. Their products are expensive because they don't produce bargain or mid-range products for the most part.

lol you took that joke way too seriously

BTW does Congress actually define the ROE's?

Right, so there's necessarily restrictive ROE for urban peace-keepers vs. open battlefield situations. Because too aggressive of a ROE, too many innocent civilians get killed and you sabotage your own mission. Maybe the ROE's need to be reformed, but that doesn't mean any proposed reformation is actually a good idea and any vote against a change is traitorous. edit: from wiki, a better-explained version of what I'm saying here: The military is a means to a political end and one tool, albeit a very large and important one, in the toolbox.

Here's a good write-up of his greatest hits http://gizmodo.com/5834413/steve-jobs-inve...r-android-phone

Well as I said earlier, that there are sexist elements to anti-abortion arguments doesn't mean all anti-abortion arguments are sexist. However, there's undeniably a sexist element to some anti-abortion arguments and movements. I'll outsource to Chait: That the results are inherently sex-based does not make the motivation sexist.

It doesn't sound sensible but I also do not know the rationale behind it. I do know that expanding the ROE to "proactive defense" sounds like a terrible idea with lots and lots of room for interpretation and unnecessarily aggressive actions. I also don't think our army should ever have gone nation-building in the first place, which would make this a non-issue.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Aug 25, 2011 -> 03:50 PM) Abortion doesn't endanger anyone else? the fetus would beg to differ. No it probably wouldn't because it's a non-sentient thing inside of a woman's body.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Aug 25, 2011 -> 03:47 PM) In the logic you are using, they are. They are allowing their sperm to either make a kid, or abort it. Without the mans sperm, there is no decision to make. Thus they are making a decision over their body. The sperm is not your body any more than your urine is, or the scab from your arm. The man has free will to engage in sex or not, after that his role in reproduction is over. He does not have to go through pregnancy and childbirth, bearing the stress it places on the body. No one, at any point, is restricting him from making choices regarding his own body. Your bizarre claim that a woman retaining choice over going through pregnancy or not is, somehow, exerting control over a man's body is ridiculous.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Aug 25, 2011 -> 03:46 PM) And they are even more regimented when your actions endanger the life of another. You've expanded the scope of the argument from rights over your own body and personal medical decisions which aren't going to endanger the lives of others.

lol saw that earlier, definitely bizarre.

QUOTE (Alpha Dog @ Aug 25, 2011 -> 09:41 AM) There have been reports of soldiers WATCHING people bury IED's and could do nothing but report on it because of the ROE. Also reports of soldiers being fired upon and not able to return fire, until they can get an OK from someone higher up the chain. That doesn't mean we need to vaguely expand the ROE to "proactive defense" though. Not supporting every single pro-military bill that comes up doesn't make someone anti-military.

Fair point, though I do not support those laws and thus there's no contradiction. There's no sex-based discrimination in those laws, however, and it doesn't bolster any sort of arguments that men should have the ability to force women into medical procedures.

QUOTE (Y2HH @ Aug 25, 2011 -> 03:21 PM) Most new androids are priced identically to the iphone...at least for a week or two until they have to give them away because nobody cares. So much for your argument. Nobody except the 60% of the market? There's a lot of mediocre Android phones out there, and that's the difference between them and Apple: Apple wants to control the entire product from start-to-finish to ensure that they only put out what they view as high-quality items in which they can control the consumer's experience, for better or worse. I'm not sure what that has to do with my "argument" that Android market share is exploding and that tech. innovation won't grind to a halt because Jobs stepped down.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Aug 25, 2011 -> 03:20 PM) If a woman can abort a pregnancy and a man can't, apparently so. Men can make whatever decisions they desire regarding their own bodies. Men cannot make decisions for women regarding the woman's body, and women cannot make decisions for men. Seems fair?

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Aug 25, 2011 -> 03:19 PM) Yes we do. We don't go after a person for an accidental death, versus an intentional one. That doesn't change the status of the dead person, which is the correct comparison to our views of a dead fetus. They don't become a person or not a person or lose or gain any other traits based on why they died.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Aug 25, 2011 -> 03:17 PM) Apparently at climax. Paying childsupport=losing the ability to make choices regarding your own body?

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Aug 25, 2011 -> 03:17 PM) We also view murder and accidental death as two different things culturally as well. We don't view the dead person differently or claim that they are a different entity, which has been pointed out several times in this thread.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Aug 25, 2011 -> 03:07 PM) So why is the father held responsible for it after its birth? That is contradictory. What is contradictory? When does the father lose the right to control his own body?