StrangeSox

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Dec 22, 2010 -> 07:40 AM) Actually, as I recall, DADT was an XO (from Clinton) that was then confirmed by Congress. I should probably go look that up, but that was my memory of it. Could be, either way it doesn't mesh with kap's rant about Congress only doing this to assert authority over the military. The policy came from outside the military leadership in the first place. It required an act of Congress or an XO to repeal (this was debatable, I think, some claiming Obama could just get rid of it). Aside from him completely dismissing the point of why discrimination based on sexual orientation is a problem, the crux of his argument, that this is just a power grab by civilian leadership, is plainly wrong.

kap, please justify the existence of DADT. Explain why it's necessary or useful, what purpose it serves. If you can't justify the policy's existence, your whole point is moot. Also, btw, DADT was originally enacted by Congress in the first place, so of course it had to be repealed by them. Which makes your rant against Harry Reid and "social f***s in Washington" all the more hilariously wrong.

QUOTE (kapkomet @ Dec 22, 2010 -> 06:50 AM) Tell me how that's wrong. And tell me exactly how DADT is bigoted. It treats homosexuals differently because they're homosexuals. Who is saying this? They want the right to serve, same as any other soldier--without fear of being thrown out if someone happens to find out they're gay. How horrible! And darkies had equal rights to sign up pre-1949, they were just going to be kept away from the rest of the soldiers. Hey, man, it's equal rights in a sense! Well, they do have the right to shout that. You don't get thrown out of the military if someone finds you emailing your opposite-sex partner, but people have been thrown out for emailing their same-sex partner. Straight service members can proclaim their sexuality all they want, gays cannot. Why is that acceptable? Why do you think it's ok to have a separate set of discriminatory rules for gays? Have you not been following this issue at all? No one has to or will have to check their sexual orientation. You "bet gay people didn't even care" about getting tossed out of the military because someone found out their sexual orientation? You "bet gay people didn't even care" that the military fostered a homophobic atmosphere? The gays in the military aren't all activists, kap. You're making your usual incredibly-broad-handwaving-and-ignorant arguments. Equal rights for what? For the same treatment as any other soldier. Seriously, enough with your retarded turn-everything-into-a-giant-conspiracy bulls***. No one is ever actually allowed to legitimately care about an issue in your world, it's all some big scheme. This is "forced" on the military because most of the military is ok with it, most of the public is ok with it, the Commander in Chief is ok with it, and most of the top brass is ok with it. Yeah, kap, your entire post is one big fail. DADT was "working" if you're ok with discriminating against gays for being gays and for kicking them out of the military. More likely than not, this was going to be ruled unconstitutional, so it was actually preferable for the military to have this legislated. Your opinion is plainly wrong. We have civilian control of the military. DADT is a bigoted policy, regardless of your scare quotes, and does not serve any real useful purpose. In fact, it has arguably harmed the military in many cases when good men and women are tossed out simply for their sexual orientation.

QUOTE (kapkomet @ Dec 21, 2010 -> 11:35 PM) And now, you've taken the last institution that had a autocratic function and broke down the very pillars upon which it was built. This law (to break DADT) had nothing to do with "rights", it absolutely was to send a message that the military doesn't control what happens, CONGRESS does. Nah, ... it was just bigoted law until now (please... that is a f***ing joke).

QUOTE (kapkomet @ Dec 21, 2010 -> 08:29 PM) It's called buying off votes. Yeah, it's sad that Republicans feel the need to sell their votes to support what should have been easily passed months ago.

FWIW, Netflix's stock jumped up on today's announcement.

It looks like Jason culled all of the old threads in November, so I'll dump this here: The Large Hadron Collider (CERN) hasn't been producing the micro black holes some were fearing would devour the Earth. And that is presenting problems for string theory. . http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2010/12/...-string-theory/

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Dec 21, 2010 -> 04:24 PM) I'm not saying their comparable, i'm just saying in effect, it is an investment. And simply because it's zero risk doesn't mean it's not an investment. Buying a bond is zero risk (absent insolvency), but it's still investing money today for a greater return tomorrow. Bonds are not zero risk, unless you're referring only to US Savings bonds or something. But then, you're not really privatizing anything, still just using secured government assets to hold the SS trustfund. From this Fortune article: Sounds like a pretty terrible idea to introduce all of that risk into what is a social insurance program so that a small percentage might see better returns in an investment and the finance industry can make personal fortunes. Privatizing it also ignores the death and disability aspects of SS, since you won't have built up enough most likely.

You're redefining investment here so you can squeeze in privatizing what is, by definition and operation, an insurance program. It is not like any other investment out there.

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Dec 21, 2010 -> 04:13 PM) Again, you're picking outliers. Outliers? Whose retirement accounts didn't drop dramatically in the last several years?

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Dec 21, 2010 -> 04:01 PM) I'm sure that if you were to take your SS contributions to date at a 2% rate of return, and compare it to your private investments you'd still be better off with the loss. Maybe, but again that misses the reasons why Social Security is not an investment and not directly comparable to investment products since it is a social insurance program.

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Dec 21, 2010 -> 03:59 PM) Do you contribute to SS with the expectation that you'll be paid the same amount in 50 years? Or more? Is there not a rate of return? Pretty sure by definition contributing money with a 2% rate of return is an investment. Edit: obviously it's not a TRUE investment, but for all practical purposes that's what it is, just in a different form. No, it really isn't. It's a social safety net for retirement and disability, not an investment. It's official name has "Insurance" right in the title, because it's an insurance system. There's no risk, other than the government going insolvent. That's not the same as an investment.

QUOTE (Steve9347 @ Dec 21, 2010 -> 03:04 PM) The horrible food wasn't convincing enough? QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Dec 17, 2010 -> 04:24 PM) Their bad food is enough for me

QUOTE (Controlled Chaos @ Dec 21, 2010 -> 03:13 PM) Um, did you miss the first drive of the game? Could have meant long-term. The team is done this year, why not give a rookie some experience?

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Dec 21, 2010 -> 02:56 PM) Now you're just being ridiculous about this. We can play any number of whatif scenarios to fit our arguments can't we? Look, if you're at or near retirement age, and you've done ANY sort of thinking towards your investments, you know (and your advisor knows) that putting your money in risky instruments is beyond stupid. You switch your mutual fund investments into bonds or the like precisely because of the risk of losing a significant chunk to a drop in the market. Over the long term, even if I lost a ton of money because of the recession, i'm going to make that money back over the long term, which is exactly the type of "security" investment a SS replacement would be: long term with low risk the closer you get to retirement. Even "safe" investments have lost a ton of value in this recession, and if you're at or past retirement age, you don't have the luxury of waiting around and hoping there's not another 'lost decade' to recover. Hell, this past year, the bond fund in my IRA is the worst-performing fund. It's lost money while the rest are up about 20%.

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Dec 21, 2010 -> 02:49 PM) But you can't ignore the reality that in some sense it IS an investment into your future. It's not "security" as if it sits in a vault only if you need it. It's an investment the same way life insurance or collision insurance is an investment--not really an investment at all.

I agree with what you're saying there, and Cutler deserves a lot of the criticism he gets. I just think Trent has some vendetta against him, but maybe it's just hyperbolic ESPN statements.

I don't know about Young, but this isn't the first time Trent's hated on Cutler. He was very harsh on him and the Bears offense, going as far as to call them pathetic. That's far from a valid criticism. Combine that with his unironic proclamations about teams needing great QB's to win in the post season, and it's easy to hate on him.

QUOTE (bmags @ Dec 21, 2010 -> 01:22 PM) because these things can't be accounted for? You are being stubborn. They're not accounted for in US anti-SS rhetoric that I'm referring to, where SS is treated as an investment vehicle comparable to IRA's instead of what it is. I'm not opposed to re-examining or restructuring the system, I just don't want it changed into something it isn't.

Which leads to the other parts of SS like disability insurance and spouse and child benefits, which is one reason why comparing "only 2% returns in SS and 8% in equities (averaged over a century!)" is faulty.

some of the crazy census rhetoric would be pretty funny right now. silver's early estimates and commentary: http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/2...-redistricting/

What happens if you're stupid enough to turn 65 (or w/ever payout age is) during a huge economic recession and don't have time to wait for it to average out? I dunno, any talk of converting SS to an investment makes me really leery. That's not why it's there.

It just talks about their auto-adjustment systems and how they had to modify it a bit. Payments were/are reduced right now, but they will go back up once things "recover."

linky

QUOTE (bmags @ Dec 21, 2010 -> 10:56 AM) yeah they learned a lot from the pared back # of choices. The default plan has performed very well...and obviously a 3 year evaluation is pretty stupid. Here's a 2009 paper looking at the impact of the financial crisis on the Swedish system.