StrangeSox

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Jan 12, 2012 -> 11:19 AM) In my view, it is only intrusive if it is required. No program so-far promoted that I have seen is a requirement to exist and be a citizen. When the idea of drug testing for welfare has come up before (because all those poor blaaa---people on welfare are druggies, despite numerous surveys indicating no higher drug usage rates!), I've asked if all government benefits should come with that stipulation. ss2k5 held a consistent position on this and said that, yes, things like the mortgage tax deduction should require drug testing. While his position on drug-testing-for-benefits is consistent, his claim that he favors a small, non-intrusive government on economic and social affairs (drug testing for benefits=economic and social policy!) doesn't square.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Jan 12, 2012 -> 11:13 AM) I'd rather none of these programs in existence if given the choice between an extreme in your moving goalposts world. When you move the goalposts again, I'd rather see the programs run directly and correctly, without wasting money. Come back to me when you are down running around in circles. Where, exactly, am I moving goalposts? You've advocated in the past drug testing for any government benefits, including tax credits and breaks. That does not square up with a small government, personal freedom ideology.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Jan 12, 2012 -> 11:04 AM) I understand the argument. Its called class warfare. It is hypocritical for people to constantly point up the income ladder and say that they are the ones who have to pay, while they themselves don't. If you truly want to complain about someone else paying a fair share, then you yourself should have want to sacrifice for people below yourself. If not, you are a hypocrite. The high school drop out struggling to hold a minimum wage job looks at the guy working on the pickle line at USX bringing home 100K a year with full benefits as rich (such as pension and health care). Using key left wing catch phrases doesn't change the fact that they are in the top wage earners, and investors in the US. Them telling the 90-95% of people below them not to target them is hypocritical if they themselves are going to target the people above themselves. Doing exactly what you tell people not to do is the very definition of hypocrisy. Trying to narrow the scope down to make it fit ideology is just a way of trying to hide. The central flaw in your argument here, and it goes right to the core, is the idea that somehow unions giving up their gains in the labor market will make things better for anyone but shareholders and owners. Without that bizarre assumption, your entire argument collapses. Unions ceding wages and working conditions and benefits will not improve the lives of anyone below them. Correctly pointing this out does not make them hypocrites. edit: It's true that class-warfare is entirely a one-way street conducting by the lazy, drug-addled moocher underclass who doesn't have any skin in the game and is just jealous of all those hard-working, boot-strapping, moral job creators!

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Jan 12, 2012 -> 11:06 AM) Apparently personal freedoms only exist to drugs in your world. I'd call that a contradiction, but that's OK. We define "freedom" very differently, of course. Assigning your definition to me does not make me a hypocrite. My definition could be wrong, of course, but my position is not hypocritical. Yours, on the other hand, is. You cannot be for extremely small government and simultaneously for one of the most intrusive government systems that could be put into place without there being a contradiction in there.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Jan 12, 2012 -> 10:49 AM) Guess what is a massive violation of economic and personal freedom? The entire tax code. See, I don't agree with that statement, so there's no contradiction there for me. But you claim to be for very limited government while also endorsing the idea that we should drug test just about every citizen. There's a pretty huge contradiction there.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Jan 12, 2012 -> 10:47 AM) I did. It is hypocritical to demand a fair share from some, but resist it when it is your turn for a fair share payment. Thank you for clarifying. You really do not understand their argument. Fighting to drag down other working-class people is not a productive way of closing income and inequality gaps between the very, very top and everyone else. It's a great way of ensuring that they will persist. It's a great way of keeping economic mobility in the US low. Their argument is against the multi-millionaires who have seen their incomes rise and rise and rise. If you see that as a problem (I know you do not, but you cannot superimpose your ideology on to theirs and then call them hypocrites for it), then there is nothing hypocritical in convincing people in similar or worse situations that the real enemy is the group at the very top who has the power, not the group ever-so-slightly ahead of them.

Please explain exactly what is hypocritical about encouraging other workers to fight for their own rights instead of fighting to drag all workers down for the benefit of capital.

Guess what is massively expensive and wasteful? Drug testing. Guess what is also a pretty severe invasion of personal privacy? Drug testing.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Jan 12, 2012 -> 10:30 AM) I'd rather see us get rid of as many of those programs as possible. there's still some contradictory about claiming to be for smaller government but also endorsing the idea that anyone who gets any direct benefits from government either in entitlements or tax deductions/credits take a piss-test. check your premises.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Jan 12, 2012 -> 10:11 AM) Anyways, my political theories are probably closest to libertarian anymore. Economically, and socially, I believe there should be as little government as possible. Except for piss-tests for every American.

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Jan 12, 2012 -> 10:13 AM) OK, first, I specifically said the Health Care Act WAS LIBERAL. Never said it was moderate, not sure where you got that idea. I completely agree with you on that issue. Except that it was conceived of by a conservative think-tank and promoted in conservative circles for years. I really don't know how you can look at the history of the core ideas in the PPACA and say that they're liberal.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Jan 12, 2012 -> 10:07 AM) It is 100% hypocritical. "Fair share" by its very definition doesn't apply to 1% of the economy. Encouraging other working-class individuals to fight against investment-class individuals for better wages, working conditions, benefits, etc. instead of fighting each other isn't hypocritical. I refuse to believe you honestly don't get their point.

That's actually not hypocritical or ironic at all, it's the entire point of uniting the "99%" against our capitalist overlords.

The health care reform was patterned heavily off of previously-Republican plans by groups Heritage and that other guy from Mass. whose name is impossible to remember since he completely faded into the background after that.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Jan 12, 2012 -> 09:29 AM) I don't believe Iran for a second when they say they aren't pursuing nuclear weapons. I don't either. That doesn't make Balta's explanations of the terms of the NPT, to which Iran is a signatory, incorrect.

Newt (and to a lesser extent, Perry) is appropriating #OWS capitalism criticism rhetoric. I'm having trouble comprehending this.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Jan 12, 2012 -> 09:10 AM) I'm glad you are 100% convinced we know everything about what is going on in every square mile of Iran. I'm not. You're the one who always uses the Bonds analogy about being willing to cheat at one point, and assuming they are willing to cheat more. I don't get what you're arguing at here. You're right in that we demonstrably have no good reason to trust Iran. On the other hand, Balta is right that the NPT allows for peaceful nuclear power programs to be developed.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Jan 12, 2012 -> 08:52 AM) With the agenda that has been pushed through in the last three years, no way. yes way.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Jan 12, 2012 -> 07:39 AM) I look at him more of a John Edwards type honestly. The sad thing is whether he is moderate or conservative Romney, either one is still better than liberal Obama. Liberal obama disappeared about 30 months ago.

QUOTE (Soxbadger @ Jan 11, 2012 -> 08:54 PM) What if it was a spurned ex-lover, that wouldnt be terrorism, that would just merely be a homicide. The distinction between act of war and terrorism, is going to be somewhat arbitrary, because it is subjective, not objective. This isn't the first Iranian scientist tied to their nuclear program that's been killed like this. There's not really any reasonable doubt as to why he was targeted.

QUOTE (Soxbadger @ Jan 11, 2012 -> 08:01 PM) USS Cole attack was committed by a terrorist organization, AQ, who I believe took responsibility for the act. If a terrorist organization takes credit for this attack, then it almost self defines itself as terrorism. IE If no one claimed responsibility for the USS Cole and it was believed Sudan was responsible, it wouldnt have been an act of terrorism, it would have been an act of war. What a group (may?) Self-identify as doesn't necessarily change the nature of the act. I guess the point is that the distinction between "terrorism" and "act of war" is arbitrary, and we would certainly define such an attack as one of terror, even if it were state-sponsored.

QUOTE (Cknolls @ Jan 11, 2012 -> 07:14 PM) I read Obama received less votes last night in NH than W did in 2004. 53k+ for W vs. a reported 49k+ for BO. Not sure if that is a harbinger of things to come though. There seemed to be a decent amount of cross-over of dems and independents. Did that hold true in 2004 as well? It's very possible that both bases are unmotivated right now.

American History

QUOTE (Soxbadger @ Jan 11, 2012 -> 05:37 PM) A potential argument would be, Scientist was not really a civilian he was part of the military, therefore not "terrorism." Once again, what determines "terrorism" is based on the facts. Easy ones are where civilians that have no connection to the military are targeted, its more gray when it could be argued that civilian was actually military. IE If the US had killed Wernher von Braun, was that terrorism or was that a military target? I dont have the facts, Iran will say that the scientist had nothing to do with an illegal nuclear weapons program, assassin would say that there was evidence that the guy was building illegal nukes. I dont really care what you call it because I think you can make an argument both ways. USS Cole bombing no longer a terrorist attack, then?

Yeah, I don't think you want a GM who thinks you need a change at QB.