StrangeSox

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Apr 5, 2013 -> 04:40 PM) Which I don't get. Is he not the supreme leader? I mean, I get the military officials have the "guns" but if Kim Jong Un/Il were thought of so highly, why not get rid of those officials? It's like they're trying to appease those guys when there shouldn't be any reason to do so. That would quickly result in a military coup.

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Apr 5, 2013 -> 01:24 PM) Rodman already provided the solution - Obama just needs to make a phone call and start talking basketball. By the way, I'm a HUGE fan of guys like Kerry, and Obama to a lesser extent, now openly talking about doing "anything" to secure our relationship with South Korea and protecting our interests there. Remember when these guys said they would just pick up the phone and schedule a face to face meeting? A little more difficult to say those things when you're a candidate as opposed to the President/Sec of State. thought this was relevant from lostfan's link: edit: the article does make is clear that, while Bush's Korea policy was inexplicably dumb, Obama's policy was bad as well.

Well plus the new kid on the block trying to assert his domestic authority over the long-time officials there.

People have been whining about "Obama doesn't have a budget!" and "the Senate hasn't passed a budget in years!" since 2009, though.

Compare Paul Ryan's budget to anything put out by the Democrats and tell me that they're equally bad/nonsensical.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Apr 5, 2013 -> 01:18 PM) I for one can't wait until he leads them to 10 extra house seats in 2014 under the banner of stopping Obama's cuts to Social Security. And there is zero sarcasm in this post. Obama is the dumbest man in the country right now for taking up their cause. I guess he doesn't remember all the way back to last year when they kept attacking him for cutting Medicare (even though they had identical cuts in their proposals and wanted more). At least in that case, it didn't work, but things are different in off-year elections. Speaking of which, don't forget to vote in local elections this coming Tuesday.

Yeah, "the Iraq War was an unmitigated disaster and an unquestionably dumb idea from the day it first brought up in Bush's SOTU speech" is not 'pacifism.' Nor is the idea that war is dumb and should always be the absolute last option and that there are other diplomatic policy tools to use besides missiles.

totally predictable.

QUOTE (iamshack @ Apr 5, 2013 -> 11:44 AM) The banks are holding them back to raise market values. I don't recall the specifics of it, but there was a law passed a few years ago which basically allows the banks to keep them on the books without having to count them as losses or whatever. So they are creating an artificial shortage in inventory by staggering the release of foreclosed homes to market. Yeah, they don't count them until they're sold. Flip side is that they can't count upkeep costs (grass cuttings, property taxes, etc.) either. There's two houses on our block that have been empty for at least two years now without being put up for sale.

QUOTE (iamshack @ Apr 5, 2013 -> 11:34 AM) Ahh, I missed what you were saying about the $10k...I should have picked up on that... Yeah, we'll see what the little lady thinks about it when we go see it this afternoon...if she loves it, we may be putting our houses on the market soon...there is super-low inventory here so it certainly wouldn't take very long to get some offers. Yeah, getting an appraisal would be great...maybe that is an option...maybe they will let us have an appraiser walk through it before making the offer, that way, they don't have to take the house to pending status while we wait for that figure to come in. Thanks, Badger. I thought Vegas had one of the worst foreclosure rates in the country? Has that mostly cleared out, or are the foreclosed homes just not coming to market yet?

QUOTE (lostfan @ Apr 5, 2013 -> 09:24 AM) There will be a time within the next two or three decades where the program pays out more than it's taking in through taxes. That is NOT the same thing as insolvency. But of all things to fix this has got to be the easiest. It'd take a couple of senators 20 minutes to write a bill. I think we're at that point now or we'll hit it in the near future, but that was planned as part of the 80's reform. Taxes for higher earners were lowered while regressive payroll taxes were raised to build up the trust fund. Now that they've enjoyed decades of lower taxes, they want to renege on the deal, keeping their taxes low and cutting social security. http://www.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2010/08/deal http://www.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2010/08/deal

QUOTE (Y2HH @ Apr 5, 2013 -> 08:49 AM) There are a lot of misconceptions about Social Security out there, and repeated enough over time, they've become accepted facts. And they'll bang this drum until they convince every last young voter that Social Security will be gone before they're eligible for it. It won't be long now, as soon as the boomers step aside, they'll have convinced every young idiot out there that social security needs drastic reforms, and that you should trust them with these reforms since the alternative is never collecting anyway. And that's how they'll get their hands on that money. It's not insolvent, and won't be for many many years, over which that insolvency can be fixed quite easily. The problem is, they don't want to fix it, because they want to be able to invest that money the same way they "invested" the pensions. I know, I'm crazy. :wub: :wub: Yeah, most people my age have fully bought into the rhetoric that they'll be getting nothing back from social security. At worst, in about three decades, it'll only pay out ~85% of required benefits. As you said, it could be fixed very easily (either raise the rate a tick or, much more appropriately, raise or eliminate the regressive FICA cap).

QUOTE (Middle Buffalo @ Apr 4, 2013 -> 09:27 PM) Count me among the anti-Bernstein crowd because I believe that he is a huge phony. However, my defense of Alford's actions that will follow aren't colored by my dislike of DB. From what I've read, Alford basically supported his player and discredited the accuser. It doesn't appear that he went way over the line and participated in a cover-up of any sort. The AIA thing is pretty bad, I agree, but who knows exactly what his level of involvement was in the situation. Obviously, he backed a bad guy, so he probably should have just stayed out of it entirely and let the university handle the situation. What if he really believed Pierce, though? What if the accusation turned out to be made up? Remember the Duke Lacrosse team? Three members of the team were accused of a sexual assault and tried and convicted in the media. People still associate Duke Lacrosse with out of control behavior even though they were found to be doing little more than underaged drinking and shenanigans. It's a tough situation for a coach. I think it's human nature for people to protect and believe people they know versus believing the accusations of someone they don't. Again, I'm really not defending Alford, but I can see where stuff like this gets really confusing for people who are asked to answer for the actions of those around them. To drag it up 11 years after the fact when Alford really didn't do much wrong reaks of desperation for attention on Bernstein's part. It's not a tough situation for a coach. You don't come out and accuse an alleged victim, another student at the university, of being a liar in the press. You say you support your players and there's an ongoing investigation, the end. You sure as s*** don't try to use behind-the-scenes pressure on get her to shut up.

He's negotiating with himself again. He's either the worst negotiator on the planet or he just thinks this is a good idea.

Jobless claims crept upwards to 384k this week, and now it's reported that the economy only added 88k jobs last month, half of what was expected. http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000142412...1558802706.html

Ugh, I have little doubt that Obama whole-heartily embraces the idea of cutting entitlements, harming those with the least among us, as part of a 'Grand Bargain,' not that he's doing so reluctantly. http://www.nytimes.com/2013/04/05/us/socia...witter&_r=0 Now combine that with his "straight talk" on Keystone: http://www.nytimes.com/2013/04/05/us/polit....html?_r=1& There are so many more ways we could be helping the economy and American citizens than by building this dumb pipeline. Why not do one of those instead?

Which is exactly why I couldn't give two s***s about any American outrage and desire to bomb NK, because it's not really our asses on the line.

Yeah, MAD for Seoul, not the US.

And, like in any MAD situation, it's more likely that hostilities will break out due to one side miscalculating or misinterpreting the other and making a move for first-strike than because one side made a deliberate decision to invade.

What I read elsewhere is that these proms are held by private groups, not the school, and that the school doesn't hold its own prom. Still, that's f***ing ridiculous.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Apr 3, 2013 -> 08:17 PM) Are you promising that isn't going to happen anyway? The history of appeasement isn't exactly a great one. It's not your ass on the line here,sk doesn't seem as gung-ho for war as some Americans do.

QUOTE (lostfan @ Apr 3, 2013 -> 08:22 PM) But no, seriously, all of the offensive options with regards to North Korea are f***ing awful, period point blank. As rough as we think Iraq was, this would be much worse in terms of casualties. Not hundreds, or thousands like Iraq, more like the tens of thousands. More concentrated areas, more hostile terrain. Their equipment is old, but it still kills people. Sure we would eventually win that war but it would be exceptionally painful. This isn't some idea to throw around all cavalier-like. Not to mention the millions of Korean lives.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Apr 3, 2013 -> 08:06 PM) Absolutely. Iraq had a lot more hard cash coming in the form of oil money. They also had a lot more outside military and political support. I meant more on how it was an unquestionable stupid decision to start that war, how awful war is and what its true costs are, not to mention how many people seem to blindly support the next great American military adventure in foreign countries.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Apr 3, 2013 -> 08:06 PM) I'm sure they appreciate being under a nuclear threat. Probably makes them feel all warm and fuzzy inside. Compared to having their city bombed to hell and back? I'd assume that'd be preferable. But maybe they should take the lead on this one since its their asses on the line and not yours?