Jenksismyhero

QUOTE (Rex Kicka** @ Aug 18, 2010 -> 02:16 PM) I think it's ok for people to oppose it. I think its fine to stand before your community's zoning board or community council and seek means to stop it. That was done in New York City. It had to pass through several hurdles and commissions to get approval to get built. And it did. What's appalling about all this, and the point I've been arguing all along - is the national faux outrage that the Republicans are whipping up. This became a national political issue before the President said word one about it. This became a touchstone of what Republicans are running on. And what's more sad is that it will work. As much as it pains me to see this, the GOP seems to find the only way to victory for them is through belittlement and exclusion. I'm not saying that Democrats don't play this card too, they do all too often. It just happens that the Republicans are better at it. Oh GMAB. You act as though the evil puppet master Republicans run the country. And it won't work, because there's nothing they can do about it. They can puff their chest and yell outrage and 6 months from now all this s***'ll be forgotten. I just hate that in this country whenever you don't have the progressive view on an issue you're instantly deemed a bigoted racist. So unnecessary (and wrong).

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Aug 18, 2010 -> 02:15 PM) So, I take it all that stuff about how "we believe Muslims are a peaceful people" and "all Muslims weren't responsible for this event" were just BS? Oh Balta, you make me laugh.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Aug 18, 2010 -> 01:28 PM) I wonder if part of that isn't location...for the simple reason that California was a major part of the price increase bubble, and 0-$250 k homes in Orange County are, um...rare. That's my point though. People are using all these national numbers to say how horrible the housing market it is, but what happens if you take away the west and east coasts? I know when I bought my house in May of this year, the Chicago numbers didn't match the national numbers. Prices actually increased a percent or two in a couple of the months. Obviously as a whole we've seen a dip here the last couple of years, but it's not nearly as drastic. I just wonder how much the "majority" of the country has been affected by the market drop.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Aug 18, 2010 -> 02:06 PM) not racist but bigoted against muslims. This is clearly the case because opponents are equating the extremists with all muslims. I'll ask again: how far away does "common sense" dictate it should be? Bigoted my ass. It's just bad form! It's rude. It's unsympathetic. It ignores a significant event in our history.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Aug 18, 2010 -> 01:09 PM) Should we stop churches or christian community centers from being built near Planned Parenthood facilities because crazy fundamentalists have bombed them or murdered doctors before? And how far away does "common sense" dictate that they build any sort of muslim building? edit: you're also making a good argument that the fear and hatred of gays is completely nonsensical and should stop immediately since they haven't harmed anyone. Well, we can ignore the reality of the situation, or we can say that in this particular instance, it's just bad form. I never said the government should stop them. The idea that people who aren't ok with it are suddenly racist (or are treating muslims like "they" treat gays) is ridiculous.

Has anyone seen a report that divides the housing market by purchase price to evaluate the drop in value? Seems to me that the lower level homes (0-250k) weren't hit as hard. It's the higher end homes that have dropped 20 or 30%.

QUOTE (Rex Kicka** @ Aug 18, 2010 -> 11:49 AM) For that matter, its not Sarah Palin's place either. Nor is it Newt Gingrich's place. Nor is it Mitt Romney's place. Or Harry Reid. They all did make a stance. And in reality, it was those stances that forced a presidential response. Or maybe its the GOP PAC's that are spending money on a TV campaign to generate outrage to try and stop getting a community center built in an old Burlington Coat Factory because Muslims are the new gays. Yeah because in this scenario there's ZERO difference there. It's not like muslim extremists killed 3k people near the site of this place. Forgot gays did that kind of stuff all the time. GMAFB. I don't think many people are seriously arguing that these people don't have the right to build their center there, it's a question of whether or not common sense dictates that it's a good idea.

Hearing what the jurors have to say, they were pretty close (11-1) on some counts. But it sounds like the jurors were confused with the evidence and time line the government presented. I'm confident on retrial they'll tighten things up, maybe present fewer witnesses, and try to be more clear in what they're presenting. One thing seems pretty clear - they all didn't buy the "Blago is just a loud moron" defense.

pretty shocked they were deadlocked on the consipiracy charges.

QUOTE (iamshack @ Aug 17, 2010 -> 05:21 PM) Fair enough. So 20 years is acceptable? Especially when you realize that the reduction that's occurred to this point has, for all practical purposes, accomplished nothing. What is the practical and real difference between possessing 35,000 bombs and 4,000 bombs? Absolutely nothing. They've been dragging their heels on this and the only accomplishment is a numbers game, so they can say "we've eliminated 80% of our stockpile!" When you have two super powers in a death stare for that long? No one is ever going to give up all of their nuclear weapons, so get rid of that pipe dream. I think that's quite a lot actually, and the talk about doing more continues.

QUOTE (iamshack @ Aug 17, 2010 -> 04:11 PM) Well I'm not going to disagree with much of this. I certainly am in favor of mitigating damage at this point. I guess I would find our position a bit more tolerable if we spent less time proclaiming the evils of all the other nations wishing to explore nuclear weapons technology and more time trying to determine the best method of eliminating our gigantic stockpile. What more can you expect in terms of eliminating stockpiles? We've gone from 35k weapons to like 5k in 50 years. I'd say that's pretty good all things considered.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Aug 17, 2010 -> 02:55 PM) No, it doesn't. National governments have clear authority over citizens. Outside of bodies like the UN or treaties, national governments do not have authority over other governments. You're missing my point. All "rights" are completely made up by organizing bodies. "Murder" is a crime because people made it a crime. Having nuclear weapons isn't ok because groups of nations got together and said so. It's the same principle.

QUOTE (iamshack @ Aug 17, 2010 -> 02:52 PM) Are you kidding me? This argument is great in the scheme of governing regular citizens. Do you really believe this is how nations operate amongst one another? We do whatever the f*** we want, when we want it, for the good of those in power. Not buying the "for the good of the whole" nonsense when it comes to the actions of the US Government on the world stage. My point is that you're claiming some "inherent right" to be able to do what you want. This cleary isn't true, either individual actions, or nation actions. "There are rules man, this ain't Vietnam." And it is for the good of the whole. Not having a nation hell bent on killing all of the Jews is a good thing, I dunno how anyone can dispute this. As is not having ANY nuclear weapons. But in this world I'd rather have the US have them than anyone else.

QUOTE (iamshack @ Aug 17, 2010 -> 02:46 PM) First of all, they are not your interests, the are the interests of the US government, so we shouldn't even use the word "our." Secondly, if we are arguing from a philosophical standpoint, you're saying that if you were on the other side of the fence, perhaps a citizen of a Finland or something, would you willingly accept that the US was dominating the discussion because it was in the interests of the US government to do so, or would you wish to argue the issue philosophically? I have a hard time accepting the answer would be the former. Again, this logic just basically goes like -"if i want to kill a man, i should be able to. its not fair that the government tells me that's wrong."

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Aug 17, 2010 -> 02:44 PM) Going with this idea and ignoring the NPT, what authority or right do we have to dictate to another country what they may or may not build? We can be angry about, disagree with it, pressure them not to do it, but I don't see the US as having an inherent right to dictate policy to the rest of the world. If you want to go down that logic train, man has no inherent right to dictate ANY policy to any other man. I can kill someone and you have no inherent right to tell me not to. But in civilized society, you do, because it's for the good of the whole. Just like not allowing a nation like Iran to obtain nuclear weapons is for the good of the world (and more importantly, us).

QUOTE (iamshack @ Aug 17, 2010 -> 02:29 PM) What is it about "our" interests that makes them so much more important than the interests of others? Because it's OUR interests. Why wouldn't OUR interests be more important than others?

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Aug 17, 2010 -> 02:20 PM) As they have for 20 years. Probably, but this is a significant and actual step towards that.

QUOTE (iamshack @ Aug 17, 2010 -> 02:19 PM) So if this was a nation that, in our opinion, was not bats*** crazy, we would be fine with them acquiring the bomb? And not against our interests, yes. Edit: I know nothing of the NPT, so maybe Balta is right. But I think if an ally of ours wanted a nuclear weapon we wouldn't make a big deal out of it.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Aug 17, 2010 -> 02:17 PM) How will this reactor allow them have a functional nuclear weapon in 2 years? My understanding is that reactors will create the fuel used in the production of nuclear weapons.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Aug 17, 2010 -> 02:17 PM) How will this reactor allow them have a functional nuclear weapon in 2 years? Most studies guesstimate that they'll have a weapon in 2-3 years

QUOTE (iamshack @ Aug 17, 2010 -> 02:11 PM) That isn't the point. The point is that the US has done whatever the hell it has wanted over the course of the last 75 years, including creating this bomb, burning fossil fuels, polluting the s*** out of anything and everything at its leisure, then when another country wants to experience the benefits of these technologies, we raise all these bs humanitarian arguments that sure as s*** never stopped us. If they didn't have leaders calling to eradicate entire ethnicities, then I would see your point. But that's not why they're seeking nuclear technology.

QUOTE (Rex Kicka** @ Aug 17, 2010 -> 01:29 PM) Not true. It also remains to be seen about how the fuel is being used and removed. If the Russians are loading the fuel in, and removing the fuel, it is not likely that Iran will get access to plutonium. Further, if fuel rods are being exchanged less often than every three or four months or so - the likelihood that this is being used for anything other than energy needs is also not likely, because any plutonium left would be too unstable to be properly weaponized. If Iran is following its agreement with Russia in getting Bahshehr online, the ability to weaponize fuel from the plant would seem to be pretty limited. Yeah, well, we'll see I guess. Iran wasn't supposed to get a nuclear reactor, but nothing stopped them. I'll give it 2 years before they have a weapon. Probably 2.1 before they threaten to use it.

QUOTE (iamshack @ Aug 17, 2010 -> 01:44 PM) I love the hypocrisy of the US thinking we should be able to decide who gets to play with uranium or plutonium, or whatever it is that they make nuclear weapons from, and who does not... Yeah because the US has no legitimate interest in this situation.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Aug 17, 2010 -> 01:07 PM) Why? Because any military option is out the window at that point (radiation), and you'd have to rely on economic sanctions (which don't work) or that Russia would step in and tell them to stop (not likely).

QUOTE (Rex Kicka** @ Aug 17, 2010 -> 12:53 PM) Having a nuclear reactor does not make you a nuclear power. nothing will stop them once the reactor starts