Jenksismyhero

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Feb 24, 2011 -> 10:56 AM) I'm confused. Do you or do you not think that there is a rather large income and wealth inequality in this country? Do you or do you not think that that is a problem? I think there is yes, and I do think it's a problem. But it's not a black and white situation. If you're comparing the top earners versus the average, then yeah. If you're talking about a guy making 250k compared to the average, then no.

QUOTE (juddling @ Feb 24, 2011 -> 12:28 AM) Ok...I've been searching Netflix streaming trying to find a show to take up my time. I watched the first two episodes of Dead Like Me. (i think it was on Showtime....dead girl becomes a Reaper). Anyways....after two shows....i'm kind of on the fence if it's worth continuing. Any opinions???? If you're looking for a Lost fix (action/drama/mystery/character type show) try Battlestar Galactica. I hate space/sci fi crap, but for some reason I was ok with this and it ended up being a pretty solid watch, especially with netflix streaming. Not sure I would have stuck with the show for 6 years week after week, but watching a couple episodes a night fixes the random clunker episode problem. I wish I had watched Lost that way.

QUOTE (BigSqwert @ Feb 24, 2011 -> 10:13 AM) I wouldn't. Having students walking around with guns every single day seems to be a bigger risk in my eyes. Why? Because if there are words in a book somewhere that says you can't that's going to stop someone hell bent on killing people?

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Feb 24, 2011 -> 10:27 AM) Wait, you agree that income inequality is a problem? On this scale? No, and I've never thought that. I was absolutely fine with not extending the Bush tax cuts for the rich. Edit: in fact I was pretty pissed that Obama No Balls couldn't stand up to the GOP on that one. He caved when he had all the leverage. Well, "caved" meaning that he deliberately chose not to because he and his rich buddies would be hurt by it.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Feb 24, 2011 -> 09:29 AM) 11 charts that explain everything wrong with America Yep, more evidence that the entire system is s***. Obama, Bush...all the same.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Feb 24, 2011 -> 09:35 AM) But I still don't see how the incredibly rare potential benefits of having guns on campus (someone *Might* be able to stop the crazy shooter that happens once or twice a decade) versus the potential drawbacks of having armed 18-22 year olds. I'd say in both cases it'd be "rare" for anything to happen as a result of this.

QUOTE (BigSqwert @ Feb 23, 2011 -> 04:02 PM) Undercover TSA Agent Sneaks Gun Through Airport’s Full-Body Scanners Five Times Security theater at its finest. I'm going to add a cut in homeland security spending to that argument in the other thread - if you're serious about fiscal responsibility and fixing our economy, medicare/ss/defense/TSA spending all have to be on the table.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Feb 24, 2011 -> 07:24 AM) To guns...the cause of and solution to all life's problems! Pretending that guns are the problem and not people is the real issue here. Continue to think that banning all guns will solve the problem though. Criminals wouldn't dare break a gun ban law right?

Those f***ing Republicans. Why can't they tone down the rhetoric? http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-roo...-when-necessary

QUOTE (fathom @ Feb 22, 2011 -> 06:49 PM) Oh, and it wasn't me who stated on here that he's having academic issues. Regardless, every Illinois game you're on here spouting crap about how much you hate Richmond. We get it. You think he's the biggest ass in the Big Ten. Move on.

QUOTE (RockRaines @ Feb 22, 2011 -> 07:05 PM) LOL what are these refs doing? Terrible no call, but probably making up for the complete seal on that Sullinger put back. Worst f***ing play in all of basketball. I despise the seal (moving tackle basically) but no ref calls that s***.

QUOTE (fathom @ Feb 22, 2011 -> 06:42 PM) Rumors are that they actually do dislike each other. You have a hard-on for any negative report about Richmond. Did he steal an ex-girlfriend of yours or something? Weber's halftime interview pretty much sums it up. He's lost this team.

this team is so f***ing pathetic. it's difficult to watch. it's like they have no idea what to do on the court.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Feb 22, 2011 -> 11:09 AM) Ok, that's a good example of a system with potential for abuse if not outright fraud. There's financial incentives for them to perform unnecessary and expensive treatment (and a small fraction of that is related to defensive medicine). How do you reform medicare/medicade to reduce or eliminate that potential? Can it be done without harming patients' care? The problem with the pay for performance method is that health care isn't a system that always achieves the desires result even when you attack the problem in the proper way. People can lead a life strictly by the book and still develop various ailments because diseases/disorders are passed down genetically and because there are so many variables at play. I don't think we should screw hospitals or doctors out of payment because they didn't cure someone 100%. Maybe set up independent administrative bodies that review medical care decisions of hospitals and their doctors on a periodic basis? Make doctors personally liable for any unnecessary treatment (as voted on by said body). Obviously you'd have to err on the side of more care is better, but maybe you can get a self-policing situation going. This is probably a good idea anyway. Most of our health care is bulls*** that's fabricated by the medical community and driven by the pharma industry (restless leg syndrome, etc). I'm also a huge fan of crippling penalties for doctors (licenses stripped/barred from practicing medicine and huge fines) and hospitals (since fines just pass the cost off to the patient, maybe create a licensing system for certain types of care and then strip those from the hospital). I think it's already exists, but putting caps on the cost that medicare will pay is another check and make those caps reasonable (i.e., i still don't understand how an ambulance ride costs 600+ or an xray costs 300+).

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Feb 22, 2011 -> 11:01 AM) I don't think you can support the claim that there's a massive amount of fraud. Well, "massive" is relative, but there's plenty of examples of fraud. Google medicare fraud and start reading the stories. But the fraud i'm talking about is basically unprovable. What doctor is going to admit that their treatment isn't 100% necessary? We all know it exists. These doctors know they'll get paid so long as they send in the right form.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Feb 22, 2011 -> 10:58 AM) I'd say it's the jobs crisis. At least at the state level. Let me steal a quote here: That sort of ignores a problem that's been growing for decades and blaming it on a "sudden" drop off in state revenue. Governments and unions should have known that the cookie jar wasn't always going to be full.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Feb 22, 2011 -> 10:52 AM) Part of the problem because of the way it's structured and funded or part of the problem because benefits need to be cut? Both, IMO, though I think the benefits part has more to do with the cost of healthcare these days moreso than the system itself (in that cuts needs to be made because more and more people are receiving treatment via medicare and the costs are only going up). But there's a massive amount of fraud in the system, and hospitals/doctors especially have every incentive to tell patients to come back repeatedly or to have X procedure performed or whatever to pad their bottom line.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Feb 22, 2011 -> 10:36 AM) What's the line for human injustice? What gives a foreign government the right to intervene, and when is that line crossed? Just to be clear, I'm not asking to be a dick or Socratic method your position, these are questions I'm genuinely interested in. I'd say anytime death/torture/inhuman treatment is involved for sure. The closer question is when inequalities exist, for example unequal rights for women like in "all arab countries." We clearly view that as fundamentally wrong, "they" view that as religious/cultural order. Are we imposing our values on them if we intervene?

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Feb 22, 2011 -> 10:30 AM) 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. No they don't, they did just fine when the defense budget was smaller under Clinton. They'd adapt as they always do. And you don't think medicare/medicaid enriches doctors/hospitals/pharma companies?

QUOTE (BigSqwert @ Feb 22, 2011 -> 10:19 AM) Yes. I wish it were higher so more people would avoid driving and infrastructure were designed for more walking, biking and public transit. Kind of ignores the scale of the country don't you think? Not everyone lives in a metro area, a fact a lot of liberals seem to ignore.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Feb 22, 2011 -> 10:26 AM) 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. Well if it's purely a moral choice and we have infinite resources and no political ramifications, then sure, we should be involved wherever there are human injustices.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Feb 22, 2011 -> 10:07 AM) 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. 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. I'm in total agreement that defense spending needs to be cut. But those that groan on and on about defense spending but don't also support similar cuts in medicare and social security and other entitlement spending is also a hypocrite who has no real desire to address any of the real economic issues in this country. It goes both ways.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Feb 22, 2011 -> 09:57 AM) "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. 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.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Feb 22, 2011 -> 09:37 AM) 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. I just don't buy that in 2011 the average American in the private sector is better off than the average public sector employee. There's no way. Maybe existing employees with 20 years of experience, but a 25 year old new to his/her career, no f***ing way.

QUOTE (GoSox05 @ Feb 22, 2011 -> 09:44 AM) I prefer we let countries liberate themselves. I think far to often we are on the side of the person getting overthrown. 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.