StrangeSox

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Jul 25, 2011 -> 01:07 PM) I agree if we were at this point 3 weeks ago. But it's obvious that NO agreement will be made until the last minute, at which point the markets will probably already drop in fear of the possibility of default, even if slight. All indications are that both parties in Congress agreed to the two step plan to avoid that, but Obama said no and Reid quickly followed. He's afraid of this becoming a campaign issue. He's putting his campaign before the country. Let's put it this way, if the two step plan added 6 months to the timeline, don't you think Obama would jump all over it? (yes, he would) And the feasibility of the two stage plan is a crap argument. An extension of less than 5 months has been done like 38 times over the last few decades. It's been done before without a problem. You can accept all of this as true. It still doesn't mean that the Republicans aren't intentionally trying to make this a campaign issue and trying to hurt Obama over this as much as possible. Yeah, duh, Obama's going to try to avoid having this same dumb manufactured problem clog up American politics for the next year. Why are Republicans putting the GOP presidential campaign ahead of the country?!!?!?!!?!?!11 The feasibility isn't a crap argument because these extensions are generally routine, not opportunities for one party to force a complete reworking of domestic fiscal policy, but this is exactly what it's become. This includes several GOP Presidential candidates, 90 House members and right-wing pundits all saying we shouldn't raise the debt ceiling period. It's like you've completely ignored that we're slightly more than a week away from starting to fail to meet debt obligations. Why on earth would you assume this will be any easier once it becomes a "campaign issue?" "I'm not disagreeing that the GOP hasn't acted like a bunch of giant idiots and said "NO!" to every incredibly favorable plan they've been presented with, but they've held out for so long we've just got to give them exactly what they want!"

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Jul 25, 2011 -> 12:45 PM) So, NSS, tell me how Obama getting out of the way is a bad thing. As of today, Congress is in agreement for a short term increase (with matching cuts) with the promise to form a bipartisan committee to decide how to obtain 3-4 trillion in cuts within the next 5-6 months. Obama said no. Why? Because he doesn't want this to become an election issue. So, even the moronic Democrats in the Senate understand how important this issue is, but Obama is making it about politics and campaign issues. It's really easy to turn that around and say the Republicans are making this an election issue by refusing to reach any agreement whatsoever with Obama, no matter how heavily it leans in their favor, because it will be seen as a political win for him. There's also no reason they couldn't accept the all-cuts Reid plan unless they want this to be a political issue for Obama and Democrats in general by insisting on bipartisan cuts to Medicare. Moronic House Republicans, don't you understand how important this is?!!! Comments from the financial sector on the feasibility of Boehner's two-stage plan:

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Jul 25, 2011 -> 12:20 PM) I'm not even getting into that clusterf*** again. I know you and Balta went back and forth on it, but in the context of "balancing the budget" or "federal budget deficits" it's an important distinction to make.

Norwegian reactions via Sullivan Greenwald has a meltdown over the media's use of the word "terrorism" and how Al Qaeda is still at fault, even when the act was carried out by an anti-Islam extremist. Also doesn't appear that this guy was "crazy" in the same way that Loughner was. His writings are coherent and make sense if you accept his premises. That's very different from the schizophrenic writings of Loughner.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Jul 25, 2011 -> 11:26 AM) As can the QE's. Isn't that just the fed printing money and not part of the federal budget?

QUOTE (BigSqwert @ Jul 25, 2011 -> 11:24 AM) Perhaps you missed the "Total Cost of New Policies" part. The extension of the tax cuts can fairly be thrown into that category for Obama.

Looks like the same data that's been floating around for a few weeks now, just in a different form. The overwhelming policy drivers of the budget deficit are Iraq, Afghanistan and the Bush Tax Cuts* and it's compounded by falling revenues and increasing safety net spending. *extended by Congress with little or no fight from Obama, in fairness to ss2k5's point. Still doesn't make it good policy.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Jul 25, 2011 -> 10:58 AM) So it really isn't a 21 year maximum. Ok?

QUOTE (Alpha Dog @ Jul 25, 2011 -> 10:52 AM) http://www.spiegel.de/international/zeitge...,744851,00.html Similar story here But again, their system is modeled on reformation, not punishment. It's not meant to be a "hard life" because they don't believe that changes the person into a better member of society in the long run, which is their ultimate goal.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Jul 25, 2011 -> 10:46 AM) So then it really isn't a 21 year maximum, and Norway is essentially lying when it calls it that. It's a 21 year maximum with the ability to make exceptions for extreme cases or people who haven't been rehabilited.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Jul 25, 2011 -> 10:34 AM) That's why I asked about the BBC. Sorry, I took that as a cynical response. I did post a Daily Telegraph link a few posts above. They actually bothered to contact a criminal law professor in Oslo. He can effectively be held indefinitely, similar to how other European countries' systems work.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Jul 25, 2011 -> 10:25 AM) Well seeing as my Norwegian is pretty spotty... That's not a good reason to assume that a newspaper in the US is accurately reporting Norwegian sentencing laws shortly after the story happens. Perhaps they should have made the effort to call someone in Norway, like that link above, to find out exactly how the system works before hyping up the "ZOMG! only 21 years!!!" story?

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Jul 25, 2011 -> 10:18 AM) So is there a BBC version that might be more reliable? Probably would make more sense to rely on Norwegian sources for Norwegian sentencing laws, at least in the immediate aftermath, for accurate information. People working at a San Francisco paper might not have knowledge of how their criminal justice system actually works.

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Jul 25, 2011 -> 10:10 AM) That's the problem. I see no issue with Norway, who has low violent crime rates anyway, using a rehabilitative approach... but there needs to be some path left open for the rare case of someone like this. They need to be able to put him away permanently, even if they don't believe in the death penalty. QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Jul 25, 2011 -> 09:07 AM) I don't trust US newspaper's reporting of foreign sentencing laws. At least Sweden, Germany and France have similar sentencing laws and lack of DP but still have provisions for indefinite secure detention in rare cases such as this. A quick google search seems to be indicating the same thing for Norway--review his case every 5 years after the first 21, but they never have to release him.

QUOTE (SoxFan1 @ Jul 24, 2011 -> 07:06 PM) I strongly recommend Naples, Florida if you're looking for somewhere on the Gulf Coast to vacation. Not as crowded as Clearwater and IMO, the beach was better. Had a great time. Was there for a long weekend in early May, had a great time.

QUOTE (FlySox87 @ Jul 25, 2011 -> 09:16 AM) What would you prefer? I'm not going to make assumptions about your preference, nor do I wish to derail the thread, but what would you prefer in order to rehabilitate people? Frankly, I think if you commit a minor crime, we throw you in jail and hope your experience in jail was crappy enough that when you get out, you don't commit any more minor crimes. If you do, we lock you up for a longer time. If that second stint isn't enough, you go away forever. Regardless of preferences or whether your proposed system is good, it's still punitive. I was just pointing that out. A separate thread to discuss prison/justice systems could be worthwhile, though.

QUOTE (FlySox87 @ Jul 25, 2011 -> 08:52 AM) Rehabilitation for murderers is bulls***. For some minor, non-violent crimes, it's acceptable. Throw the drug users and stalkers and embezzlers in prison for a while and hope that by the time they're freed, they're smarter than to try that s*** again. That's still just a punitive approach, not a rehab/reform approach. I don't trust US newspaper's reporting of foreign sentencing laws. At least Sweden, Germany and France have similar sentencing laws and lack of DP but still have provisions for indefinite secure detention in rare cases such as this. A quick google search seems to be indicating the same thing for Norway--review his case every 5 years after the first 21, but they never have to release him.

FWIW Sweden has similar laws (no death penalty, no life imprisonment) but they do have mechanisms to keep special cases locked up indefinitely.

QUOTE (Alpha Dog @ Jul 24, 2011 -> 01:03 PM) And since 80% of the country is Christian, do they have to keep saying Christian as if he was a minority? Are they that relieve=ed that it wasn't a Muslim that they have to repeat it constantly? From what I'm reading, he was pretty pissed off at christianity as well.

QUOTE (Alpha Dog @ Jul 24, 2011 -> 01:00 PM) Then so was the guy that tried to whack the congresswoman in Arizona. Any condemnation you want to heap on one side for this had better be equally sent the other way as well. But I sure saw a rush to non-judgement once it was revealed that THAT guy was a far left loon. Politics don't make you shoot kids. Evil does. You do realize that you can point out he was a right-wing nutter in Norway without it being some comment on right-wing politics in Norway in general, much less making it US-centric?

QUOTE (Alpha Dog @ Jul 24, 2011 -> 12:41 PM) You guys all miss the point. When you get to this level of crazy/evil, the politics don't matter. While I assign evil motives to many on the Dem side of the aisle, they don't extend to blowing up buildings and shooting children. This guy was crazy/evil. Nuff said. His motives were caused by his incredibly radical politics as far as I've read.

Anyway there's a lot of this guy's crazy ranting stuff archived already, links available if anyone wants them.

QUOTE (BigSqwert @ Jul 23, 2011 -> 05:59 PM) Yeah, he should have not included facts to the case. That's something that should be swept under the rug regarding this whacko. It's pretty insulting to assume this is really about American politics. We need a specific disclaimer to avoid the reaction I guess.

lol, sure thing buddy