StrangeSox

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Feb 22, 2011 -> 10:11 AM) Correct me if I'm wrong, but we are at war openly in at least two countries, and covertly in others yes? Whether you agree with that is a different argument. That would explain the rise in defense spending over the last decade. That's a big part of the problem and what Eisenhower warned against. Lockheed,Raytheon etc. need those wars to keep the defense dollars coming. SS, medicade and medicare exist for reasons other than enriching military procurement contractors and bombing places.

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Feb 22, 2011 -> 10:07 AM) Well, it's reality. We do not have the resources to be the world's police, so we have to pick and choose. s***ty choice, but again, that's reality. That's why I phrased the question to remove those considerations and make it a moral choice--when and where should a foreign government intervene, ignoring real-world international politics and military resources. Again, I could post some pretty horrific images to illustrate the narcissism I see in the "what's in it for the US?" idea of analyzing everything.

QUOTE (Cknolls @ Feb 22, 2011 -> 10:09 AM) How convenient that you left out medicare, medicaid, and SS. It's not a complicated point. That pie chart is discretionary spending. Defense spending keeps rising and rising and rising and rising. We outspend almost the entire rest of the world combined. It's unnecessary and it's very, very expensive. That doesn't mean I advocate cutting all defense spending. That doesn't mean cutting all defense spending would solve the problem. It doesn't mean we shouldn't look at entitlement spending as well as tax policies. What it does mean is that anyone who groans on and on about "fiscal responsibility" and balanced budgets and cries about socialism and kickbacks but supports all military expenditures is a hypocrite who has no real desire to address any of the real economic issues in this country.

QUOTE (BigSqwert @ Feb 22, 2011 -> 10:06 AM) Maybe this conversation needs to be in a separate thread. I'm getting tired of the trolling. I support splitting arguments from the partisan catch-alls, but I'm not going to complain about someone arguing against something in the Democrat thread. The idea of shielded, irrefutable threads in this forum is counter-productive to me (I'm being kind with my phrasing).

QUOTE (Cknolls @ Feb 22, 2011 -> 10:04 AM) And your point is what? End defense spending and we solve problem? Again LMFAO!!! You people are killing me. Continue circle jerk... Nope. It's not a complicated point. Defense spending keeps rising and rising and rising and rising. We outspend almost the entire rest of the world combined. It's unnecessary and it's very, very expensive. That doesn't mean I advocate cutting all defense spending. That doesn't mean cutting all defense spending would solve the problem. What it does mean is that anyone who groans on and on about "fiscal responsibility" and balanced budgets and cries about socialism and kickbacks but supports all military expenditures is a hypocrite who has no real desire to address any of the real economic issues in this country.

QUOTE (Cknolls @ Feb 22, 2011 -> 10:03 AM) I'll say it again, link the retirement benefits of public sector unions to the retirement benefits of the everyday joe, i.e. social security, and problem disappears. Want to retire, go ahead, but you get reduced benefitss at 62, and receive full benefis at what is now, nearly 67 yrs? You do not have to change anything. Great, now you've taken away some of the bargaining power for public workers and some of their total pay. Will you adjust their wages upwards to match their private sector counterparts as well?

http://revolution2.moonfruit.com/ Updated continuous confirmed/unconfirmed reports from Libya.

Regarding the Koch brothers, I'm always a little skeptical when they're brought up that they've just become the left's version of the "OMG! Soros is controlling the world!" s***.

QUOTE (Cknolls @ Feb 22, 2011 -> 09:58 AM) LMFAO!!!! Yeah that's it!!!! The 2009 U.S. military budget accounts for approximately 40% of global arms spending and is over six times larger than the military budget of China (compared at the nominal US dollar / Renminbi rate, not the PPP rate). The United States and its close allies are responsible for two-thirds to three-quarters of the world's military spending (of which, in turn, the U.S. is responsible for the majority).

QUOTE (Cknolls @ Feb 22, 2011 -> 09:57 AM) Should they pay for their own retirements? Healthcare? Maybe? That's a reasonable debate to have. Soxy, someone who's in that situation, seems to agree that public workers should pay a little more for their benefits. Removing all collective bargaining power, oh, and throwing in a nice clause to completely redefine what's in the public's best interest so you can sell state assets cheaply to your campaign backers, doesn't address it.

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Feb 22, 2011 -> 09:48 AM) Thankfully the French didn't think this way 250 years ago. I'm with NSS, if there's a US gain then we should act, hopefully in concert with other nations. "Hmm, what's in it for me to stop a country from bombing its own citizens?" That's a pretty awful way to look at it. And it's also why the US supports plenty of terrible governments. And I don't think NSS would agree with that position.

Statistics disagree? On average, public sector workers earn less than similar private sector workers. That would mean a more highly educated work force they're comparing to than all private sector workers. That does not include benefits, but only wages. I'm sure you're right that someone with 20 years of experience and the associated pay raises and promotions in the public sector makes more than someone fresh out of college. That's trivial and I'm not sure why you'd bring it up. The starting salary for a teacher around here is under $40k. What's the starting salary for someone with a BA or BS?

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Feb 21, 2011 -> 04:53 PM) Sox fans aren't the meatheads that Bears fans can be. We can accept the truth. There's a difference between giving credit where credit is due and giving them a blowjob whenever they possibly can.

Pretty sad that Libya is on the UN Human Rights Council.

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Feb 22, 2011 -> 09:34 AM) My understanding was his bill specifically excludes bargaining for employee wages, so that's not really a concern. It's more about the benefits they would bargain for, which are probably better than the average American's already. Bargaining involves give-and-take. Walker wants to take away many of their bargaining chips. Their benefits are better because they earn less on average.

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Feb 22, 2011 -> 09:27 AM) A no fly-zone and a direct military operation (or many operations) are a little different. I'm not disagreeing with you, I'm just wondering what the line is for intervention. If it's helping innocent people, there's a ton we could do around the world. Yeah, that's the core of my question. Leaving aside all Real Politik, where is that line? When should foreign governments intervene on the behalf of citizens?

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Feb 22, 2011 -> 09:03 AM) Oh come on, the issue isn't so one-sided. These unions are the cause of a lot of the budget issues around the country precisely because they had way too much power and kept raping states for more money. Governors/state legislatures couldn't very well campaign against funding for teachers/cops/fireman, etc. until we hit these huge budget deficits. He's just taking advantage of the timing of it all. The issue is pretty one-sided. Despite being a bogey-man for some, unions do not have nearly as much power as the billionaires who oppose them. Individual workers, even less so. The idea that unions been "raping states" is just laughable, especially when it's contrasted against who's opposing unions and the power they possess (especially after Citizens United).

http://www.thepaincomics.com/weekly021120.htm NSFW language in the cartoon

Krugman with a good article on the Wisconsin union bulls***: http://www.nytimes.com/2011/02/21/opinion/...ugman.html?_r=1

I could post some pretty graphic, terrible images of what Qaddafi is paying mercenaries to do to their own citizens. But we must keep US/Israeli interests at the front of any discussion. Leaving aside international diplomatic relations, I'm not sure what the US should be doing here. The protesters deserve solidarity and support, but should the US (or other countries) use military force to stop the atrocities being carried out against the Libyan people? If they're bombing their own people with planes, should those planes be brought down?

Cool, that's relevant.

10:25pm: More on the resignation of the two diplomats from the embassy in Washington DC. Counsels Saleh Ali Al Majbari and Jumaa Faris denounced Gaddafi, saying he "bears responsibility for genocide against the Libyan people in which he has used mercenaries". They said they had nothing to do with the events and they no longer represent Gaddafi’s regime - but that they represent the Libyan people. The pair also called on Barack Obama to "work urgently with the international community to press for an immediate cessation of the massacres of the Libyan people", and they are asking the United Nations to impose a no-fly zone imposed on Libya to prevent the arrival of mercenaries to Libya.

No. I don't see this solving any problems at all and potentially creating other serious problems.

http://blogs.aljazeera.net/middle-east/201...live-blog-libya 7:39pm: Karl Stagno-Novarra, Al Jazeera's correspondent in Malta, reports the pilots of the jet fighters that landed there are "senior colonels", who were ordered to bomb protesters. They refused and have defected to Malta, he said. 7:45pm: The defected pilots reportedly tell Maltese officials they were based in Tripoli and ordered to attack protesters on the ground in Benghazi. After seeing their fellow pilots begin the airstrikes, they diverted course toward Malta. If substantiated, this would appear to confirm the use of airstrikes against civilian protesters in cities around the country.

Yeah, I phrased it that way to include those uncertainties, not to toss out WAR/VORP etc. When I said it was unanswerable, I meant with any good amount of certainty or precision.