prev <-> next
[2011-09-08 10:08:39] - a: mostly, yes. also travelling to alexandria, dc, wherever also consumes a lot of time. - mig
[2011-09-08 10:00:33] - because you work?
~a[2011-09-08 09:59:10] - a: weekdays aren't usually good for me. - mig
[2011-09-08 09:54:13] - mig/pierce: i guess i should have addressed that to you guys too, sorry. ~a
[2011-09-08 09:53:32] - aaron: would you do barcraft again? this time it's on a wednesday evening. i have a meeting that day, so i'd probably show up around 2000. i'll send out an email if you're interested. ~a
[2011-09-07 16:32:06] - a: Finally a unisex solution to our ballsy conundrum. -- Xpovos
[2011-09-07 16:30:15] - grapes???? I can buy some grapes if thats what it takes... ~g
[2011-09-07 16:16:06] - i've placed them where you'll never find them. the only way you'll get me to talk about their location is through slow, painful torture, and i don't think you've got the grapes. ~a
[2011-09-07 16:13:27] - a: Ill pout and cry... and if you still dont give me a copy Ill steal it from you
~g[2011-09-07 16:02:50] - i just bought up all of the copies. i hope you're willing to do anything for one. ~a
[2011-09-07 16:00:13] - Ticket To Ride Asia is coming out... ALL MINE! ~g
[2011-09-07 15:57:08] - hey, take the git user survey! they do this every year in september. http://tinyurl.com/GitSurvey2011 ~a
[2011-09-07 15:09:42] - http://news.cnet.com/8301-1023_3-20102760-93/in-online-game-tea-partiers-make-zombie-targets/?part=rss&subj=news&tag=2547-1_3-0-20 For the record, I have no problem with this, but I hope people remember this the next time somebody accuses the Tea Party of using violent rhetoric. -Paul
[2011-09-07 10:48:38] - http://content.usatoday.com/communities/campusrivalry/post/2011/09/texas-a38m-accepts-southeastern-conference-with-condition/ texas a&m to sec all but official. begun these conference alignment wars has.- mig
[2011-09-07 10:16:55] - aaron: "Do Androids dream of ODing on cocaine on their 50th birthday?" -Paul
[2011-09-07 10:14:24] - aaron: no more 1-pound hamburgers for you! - mig
[2011-09-07 09:57:26] - paul: yeah, i agree how it would motivate the government to drive its citizens towards healthy low-maintenance lifestyles which would be terminated by abrupt inexpensive deaths. sounds like the premise for another philip k. dick scifi box office winner
- aaron[2011-09-06 21:42:52] - Aaron: Not that I would necessarily be more in favor of it, but it would make more sense than having such a law in a land with no public health care IMO. -Paul
[2011-09-06 21:42:14] - Aaron: So if we did have public health care here, and some senator tried introducing some "Everybody must run 5 miles at the government gym" law, I would see the logic behind that law more than if there was no public health care. -Paul
[2011-09-06 21:41:16] - Aaron: I was more thinking of it as a logical thing in my own mind. Without public health care, I mostly don't care what other people do to their own bodies (smoke, eat poorly, don't exercise), but with public health care in place, I would then have a vested interest in what other people do. -Paul
[2011-09-06 21:39:38] - Aaron: Ah, ok. Then I think we're mostly in agreement on that point. I didn't really intend to make any statements regarding whether governments were more willing to get involved in public health if there was a public health care system. -Paul
[2011-09-06 17:47:48] - "it was fishing for personal information" i thought about mentioning this. you must put in false data here, or else they'll have motivation to add more fishing schemes like these in the future. ~a
[2011-09-06 17:37:24] - paul: (unless you're willing to really misinterpret things like Physical Fitness Testing or trans fat bans) - aaron
[2011-09-06 17:37:03] - paul: and as far as the "government gym point", i was just extrapolating from your point.... a logical extension of the government "telling you you can't eat fast food" (your words) is that the government would have mandatory exercise and stuff like that. i don't think governments have historically done either - aaron
[2011-09-06 17:35:06] - paul: i'm saying that i think that without government-provided health care, governments currently care about our health enough to enforce things like smoking ages and "sin taxes". i think with government-provided health care, things would be about the same - or rather, i don't know of any evidence to think otherwise (but... maybe there is??) - aaron
[2011-09-06 17:19:47] - Ditto. I ended up answering with my spam filter data. So no real harm, but seriously annoying. I selected the mid-atlantic as my preferred area (it's important to stay close to family) and got some good hits, though. I'll have to check them out. -- Xpovos
[2011-09-06 17:03:22] - a: I'm guessing you got that region because of the outdoor activities? Did you say you enjoyed stuff like hiking and skiing? -Paul
[2011-09-06 17:02:39] - a: Sad. I went through all the questions before realizing that it was fishing for personal information. Wish I had known that ahead of time.
-Paul[2011-09-06 16:33:37] - i took vinnie's quiz from the subtitle "find the city that's best for you: http://www.findyourspot.com - vinnie" most of my results were oregon, nevada, new mexico, colorado, california. i didn't input a preferred region or a preference for size of government or taxes either. why did this region stand out? ~a
[2011-09-06 16:25:53] - Aaron: I'm also not sure I get your point about the government gym, so I apologize if I get this wrong. Are you saying that so far government has only been using sin taxes to "softly" push it's agenda instead of trying to actually force people to workout or whatever? -Paul
[2011-09-06 16:20:22] - Aaron: Oh, I don't actually know if there is a correlation between public health care and government meddling in things. I was more thinking about whether those laws were reasonable (in my mind). I'm not sure I understand your point about health care providers telling me I have to go to a gym. Mine doesn't require that.... -Paul
[2011-09-06 16:12:25] - SENT! ~a
[2011-09-06 15:19:54] - paul: sure, i'll plan. ~a
[2011-09-06 15:05:18] - aaron: I think its supposed to be boyfriend/girlfriend... ~g
[2011-09-06 14:48:13] - g: is it still going to be customer-oriented... or are they planning for it to be like, boyfriend/girlfriend stuff sometimes? i could see some pretty good potential if it's the latter. you should submit the story where paul wanted, what was it, the bridesmaids to be introduced via "The Final Countdown"?? - aaron
[2011-09-06 14:44:00] - Not Always Right has a new site notalwaysromantic.com although I think they are planning on having old stories until they build up enough new input... ~g
[2011-09-06 14:42:11] - don't get me wrong, i have just as big an imagination as the next guy and i can definitely imagine, like, "whoaa! they make us run 5 miles a week at a government gym or we have to pay a tax" and stuff. i just wonder if any country with a public health care system does anything like that. i think they just have the same kinds of fast food taxes we have in the US - aaron
[2011-09-06 14:41:58] - mig: The issue with the labels is government force vs. their own volition. Government can force individuals to post certain information, including detrimental information, if there is a compelling reason and if the information is "factual and non-controversial". There's little denying the factual part of these images, but--non-controversial? -- Xpovos
[2011-09-06 14:40:34] - paul: and you have to realize that even with a 100% public health care system... the government would just be replacing your health care provider. does your current health care provider tell you you can't eat fast food or have to go to a gym or whatever? mine is pretty cool. i'm all "mcdonalds again, sorry" and they're like, "ok whatevs" - aaron
[2011-09-06 14:39:24] - paul: hmmm, while intuitive, i wonder if that's true. are there any really really large countries with private health care? does america count? because we already legislate things like smoking and obesity... is it true that countries with public health care are more likely to establish mandates about their citizens health and stuff? - aaron
[2011-09-06 14:11:07] - Aaron: I mostly don't care if somebody wants to smoke 5 packs a day, eat Big Macs for every meal and never exercise, and I don't want somebody else telling me I can't eat fast food or have to go to a gym or whatever. -Paul
[2011-09-06 14:05:13] - Aaron: I don't like public health care for many reasons, but one which I think is illustrated by what we are talking about now is that public health care suddenly gives the government a reason to legislate things like smoking and obesity, because of the "health care costs" excuse. -Paul
[2011-09-06 14:03:12] - a: Speaking of something that provides (almost) nothing useful and kills almost all of their users in a very short amount of time... are you planning Ultimate this weekend? -Paul
[2011-09-06 13:56:21] - i guess insurance and health care are two different issues maybe that statement didn't make any sense. - aaron
[2011-09-06 13:56:04] - health insurance overall is one thing i'm conflicted on because i think we need the competitiveness of a free market to ensure people pay a fair price... but countries like the UK/Canada/etc with public healthcare are just sooooooo much more efficient with it it seems - aaron
[2011-09-06 13:52:07] - i'll accept that smokers cost the health insurance system less right now, although i wouldn't be surprised if that figure changes drastically over time. like the study i cited was from 1992, and it's possible (although not likely) that cigarettes or demographics or health care were different enough back then that both studies are accurate - aaron
[2011-09-06 13:48:45] - i realized later the "higher health (fixed!) insurance premiums" argument was flawed - health insurance premiums are higher for smokers because they pay for each year they're alive, and i think we all agree that smokers pay more while they're alive; health insurance companies don't get to reap the benefits of collecting money from a dead smoker - aaron
[2011-09-06 13:38:50] - a: I did not say they do, I just said I would be surprised if they don't. And well, now I am surprised. - mig
[2011-09-06 13:34:43] - mig: there are at least three things wrong with your statement. 1. no they don't; i've never had a medical exam for my many life insurances. 2. you can keep that kind of thing a secret from a medical exam if you smoke only a few per week (a minority of smokers smoke this infrequently i know). 3. you can start smoking after your medical exam. ~a
[2011-09-06 13:33:45] - besides, life insurance typically does != subisized health care, so I think this is kind of an irrelevant figure. - mig
[2011-09-06 13:32:26] - a physical or whatever, which I'm very sure they could probably deduce whether you smoke or not from that exam. - mig
[2011-09-06 13:32:09] - i get a high off of video games
~a[2011-09-06 13:31:53] - a: I would be very surprised if a life insurance company would not require you to take some sort of medical exam before applying. - mig
[2011-09-06 13:29:56] - a: So because they don't get a "high" off of it, that doesn't count? Does that mean video games provide (almost) nothing useful either? -Paul
[2011-09-06 13:28:54] - aaron: "life insurance premiums are higher for smokers" only when the insurance company knows they're smoking. i believe a small percentage of semi-regular smokers can probably keep it a secret from their insurance companies. ~a
[2011-09-06 13:28:08] - aaron: using that, their lifespan would need to be like 25 years shorter. ~a
[2011-09-06 13:27:57] - a: http://weakonomics.com/2009/04/14/cigarette-smokers-rejoice-you-dont-burden-society-with-healthcare-costs/ -Paul
[2011-09-06 13:26:40] - oh, duhhh. life insurance premiums are higher for smokers. case and point right?? ahhaha. i was overthinking this. fuck medical studies, insurance companies always know what's up - aaron
[2011-09-06 13:26:11] - the enjoyment out of smoking was the reason i added "(almost)". i don't consider that disingenuous because long-time smokers (which account for most smokers) don't get a high off of nicotine. ~a
[2011-09-06 13:25:53] - a: hmm this 1992 study thinks heavy smokers lfietime medical costs are 47% higher, but i'm not sure. i see a lot of news articles implying the opposite but they don't have sources. i guess it's either still up for contention, or someone is lying about it - aaron
[2011-09-06 13:25:21] - a: How is it a fallacious argument? Do we know for sure that they "don't die early enough"? -Paul
[2011-09-06 13:23:39] - a: Doesn't it seem a bit disingenuous to say it provides (almost) nothing useful? Does getting enjoyment out of smoking not count as something useful? If so, we can use that same argument against a LOT of things. -Paul
[2011-09-06 13:21:44] - aaron: yes that would surprise me. because i have heard that smokers have a drain on the healthcare system. wikipedia mentions it too. ~a
[2011-09-06 13:19:33] - a: i'm pretty sure it's been proven (numbers wise) that morbidly obese people rack up less hospital bills over their lifetime than "skinny people". when you say it's fallacious, are you sure that smokers don't rack up less hospital bills over their lifetime? it wouldn't surprise me - aaron
[2011-09-06 13:18:06] - paul: it's better to use that "at least half" phrasing, even if they know "exactly 55% of smokers are definitely killed by smoking", it's more accurate to say, "at least 55%" because it's more misleading to imply that smoking only played a role in 55% of their deaths. it's less misleading to say, the number's at least that big, but we're not sure how big it is - aaron
[2011-09-06 13:17:30] - if they die N times as quickly but cost more than N times as much per year, then they don't die early enough. ~a
[2011-09-06 13:16:43] - paul: many deaths (i.e heartattacks) aren't directly attributable to smoking even if smoking might have been a factor in the development of heart disease. for example, smokers might be 25% more likely to die of a heartattack but it doesn't mean you can point to a smoker with a heartattack and say "yep, smoking killed him" - aaron
[2011-09-06 13:16:31] - yes, you can make that fallacious argument if you'd like. ~a
[2011-09-06 13:14:13] - a: isn't there an argument to be made though that since a lot of them die early they end up costing less in the long run? - mig
[2011-09-06 13:11:54] - as aaron points out, lung cancer isn't the only outcome from smoking. also, death isn't the only downside. what percentage of health insurance premiums pay for smoking problems? ~a
[2011-09-06 13:10:05] - modified i guess it's a numbers game. cigarettes provides (almost) nothing useful and kill/wound almost all of their users in a very short amount of time. our other examples aren't NEARLY as pronounced in either dimension. ~a
[2011-09-06 13:02:52] - aaron: I didn't dig too deep into the wikipedia article, but I'm assuming when they say "At least half of all lifelong smokers die earlier as a result of smoking", the number is probably close to 50% or else a stronger phrasing would be used. I think that's still a far cry from "almost all". -Paul
[2011-09-06 12:59:52] - aaron: Just because a smoker has a heart attack, I don't think it's fair to say that it was caused by smoking in the same way that lung cancer or Emphysema might be. -Paul
[2011-09-06 12:58:11] - aaron: Well, I didn't think about Emphysema, so I guess that one counts as "forgot". As for heart attacks, I feel like it's a lot harder to pin that directly on smoking since, unlike the other two diseases, I don't think the #1 cause of heart attacks is smoking. -Paul
[2011-09-06 12:47:58] - the only advantage the new labels have, i guess, is that people who can't read english will understand that cigarettes cause gross things to happen to your body. but tobacco companies could mitigate this effect by plastering gross photos on other commerical products, if they're smart - aaron
[2011-09-06 12:45:42] - i mean to say i don't think the original labels are in any danger. - mig
[2011-09-06 12:45:40] - paul: anyways i'm still against the new warnings, and i'm in favor of the old warnings. there's a difference between trying to educate someone and trying to gross them out or make them squeamish. like the texas bill that forced people to watch a sonagram before getting an abortion, it's the same to me - aaron
[2011-09-06 12:44:59] - xpovos: mmm, I think the original labels would be in any danger, maybe that too could be legally challenged but I don't think it would get anywhere. The government can always claim that they are needed for consumer information purposes, which isn't all that controversial. Through their own admission, they can't say the same for the new images. - mig
[2011-09-06 12:44:11] - paul: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smoking#Health_effects apparently half of all lifelong smokers die as a result of smoking, and their life expectancy is 13.2 years shorter (for men) or 14.5 years shorter (for women) - aaron
[2011-09-06 12:43:01] - paul: are you deliberately ignoring emphysema, heart disease, or other diseases brought on by smoking to make your point stronger, or did you genuinely forget about them? - aaron
[2011-09-06 12:40:37] - xpovos: I think it unprecedented for a few reasons. First, yes, warning labels are generally uncontroversial, but this arguably is going way beyond that. Now, it's one thing to put mandatory labels for information purposes. It's quite another to plaster a large majority of a product with scary images whose sole purpose is to drive people away from said product. - mig
[2011-09-06 12:13:46] - Xpovos: Which is a far cry from saying that it kills almost all of their users in a very short amount of time, IMO. -Paul
[2011-09-06 12:13:06] - Xpovos: Right, right. I'm certainly not arguing that smoking isn't dangerous or that it doesn't cause lung cancer. My point is that it appears that (using bad statistical analysis again) it seems like it takes around 20 years for less than 20% of lifetime smokers to die of causes directly related to smoking. -Paul
[2011-09-06 11:58:55] - Paul: I take your point, and agree, but what's the lung cancer rate among non-smokers? Using bad statistical analysis from the same page it's somewhere around 85% less. So, even though most smokers don't end up with lung cancer, they do get lung cancer at about 6 times the rate of non-smokers. -- Xpovos
[2011-09-06 11:37:00] - a: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Cancer_smoking_lung_cancer_correlation_from_NIH.svg Obviously this isn't proof, but it appears that it takes around 20 years for lung cancer to develop among those 11-17% of smokers who develop lung cancer. -Paul
[2011-09-06 11:35:53] - a: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lung_cancer#Smoking "Among male smokers, the lifetime risk of developing lung cancer is 17.2%; among female smokers, the risk is 11.6%" -Paul
[2011-09-06 11:33:59] - a: I know smoking isn't good for you and all, but doesn't it take either a lot smoking per day or smoking over many years for lung cancer to develop in some smokers? -Paul
[2011-09-06 11:32:33] - a: "kill almost all of their users in a very short amount of time" Is that accurate? What percentage of smokers die from something directly attributable to smoking? Also, how long does it take for smoking to kill people? -Paul
[2011-09-06 11:17:28] - If so, the federal government may actually be injuring it's own long-held (we can disagree on should, but they are long-held) position against cigarette smoking by trying to push too hard. -- Xpovos
[2011-09-06 11:16:16] - mig: It's decidedly not unprecedented. It's also generally legal, but only to a specific point. The question will be whether this exceeds that point, which is fair judicial game. The really fun question is: if this is too far, were the original warning labels which the companies placed themselves out of political expediency also illegal if forced? -- Xpovos
[2011-09-06 11:03:29] - i guess it's a numbers game. cigarettes provides (almost) nothing useful and kill almost all of their users in a very short amount of time. our other examples aren't NEARLY as pronounced in either dimension. ~a
[2011-09-06 10:58:58] - xpovos: yeah i'm kind of interested in the possible legal challenge. I mean, you basically have the government taking over the marketing of a private product. Even with an overly broad commerce clause this seems rathter unprecedented, which in of itself should make things interesting. - mig
[2011-09-06 10:55:24] - Paul: I'm not sure they're a good idea. When you're addicted, you don't care; and this isn't likely to stop the process by which people become addicted. It's also facing a very interesting legal challenge, which I will watch with glee, but I'm not going to come down on either side of the legality at this point. I'd say it's pretty close to 50/50. -- Xpovos
[2011-09-06 10:54:18] - And I suppose it's kind of ironic that with all this talk about jobs, we have the government actively trying to destroy the business of a private company, which sort of destroys jobs. - mig
[2011-09-06 10:50:43] - like we had pictures of fat obese kids plastered on x-boxes, or someone smashed thumbs with every hammer, etc... - mig
[2011-09-06 10:49:30] - a: though, I guess I'm curious, would you be for it if that sort of thing was universal? - mig
[2011-09-06 10:41:03] - a: and that's precisely were my objections would be, I think it sets an awfully terrible precedent. - mig
[2011-09-06 10:37:38] - i hadn't heard about this either. it's nothing new. other countries have been doing it for a while. personally i'm against it, but only because it's super inconsistent. fatty foods aren't required to be sold with pictures of people with diabetes having their legs cut off. cars companies don't put pictures of car accidents in their ads as required by law. alcohol. ~a
[2011-09-06 10:23:29] - aaron: http://www.cnn.com/2011/HEALTH/06/21/cigarette.labels/index.html You hadn't heard about them? I guess it's because of the news sites I frequent. I thought it was a nationwide thing and not state-by-state. -Paul
[2011-09-06 09:56:10] - paul: was this just limited to NY or is this a nantional thing now? - mig
[2011-09-06 09:47:08] - paul: i haven't heard anything about them. but assuming it's what it sounds like, it seems a little juvenile, like some of the more hardcore anti-abortion/pro-vegetarianism campaigns. is it state by state? - aaron
[2011-09-06 09:17:26] - How do people here feel about the new, graphic cigarette warning labels? Good idea? Legal? -Paul
[2011-09-04 12:58:37] - Xpovos: Or print a helluva lot more money and kick off crippling inflation. -Paul
[2011-09-04 02:35:59] - File:Woman snorkelling -San Andres, Archipelago of San Andres, Colombia-9Feb2011.jpg
[2011-09-02 18:58:51] - *note I consider reducing benefits promised to even 75% or so to be a form of default. We're reneging on a 'promise' albeit not a true bond promise, but a political one. -- Xpovos
[2011-09-02 18:56:21] - So, we either default, reduce benefits to even less than 75% (or both) or we reduce spending elsewhere in crippling fashion, or we raise taxes. Or somehow we change the rules of the game. E.g. decouple benefits from COLAs and inflation, and inflate like crazy. -- Xpovos
[2011-09-02 18:55:04] - a/aaron: On the things explode issue: It's, in a sense, true that 75% or so of the promised benefits can continue to be paid, if demographics don't shift too much; but doing so requires that Congress pay down the debt. Remember that lock box discussion in 2000? Congress has raided the piggy bank (for decades) and now when the bills come do, there's only IOUs. -- Xpovos
[2011-09-02 18:52:36] - "Ok, fine, we'll extend the tax cuts for EVERYONE, but you have to put in a payroll holiday tax for a year". Basically the thought is that it helps lower income people out more because (obviously as a regressive tax) they pay more in social security taxes than the wealthier who got the Bush tax breaks. -- Xpovos
[2011-09-02 18:51:37] - a: Yes (thigs still 'explode'), those calculations expect the employee contribution holiday sunsets as expected, or never factored it in at all. The holiday was created by Democrats as a fiscal stimulus to put more money into consumers hands and was essentially their piece of the Bush tax cut extention bill. -- Xpovos
[2011-09-02 16:58:13] - "even rosy scenarios admit it's going to be in the tens of trillions of dollars over the next few decades" ok . . . so lets revert the employee contribution. will things still explode? ~a
[2011-09-02 15:40:33] - I also didn't know there was a survivor's benefit (I assumed payments just stopped once the individual died), but it seems somewhat restrictive on who qualifies. - mig
[2011-09-02 15:33:28] - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_security_united_states#Claim_that_it_discriminates_against_the_poor_and_the_middle_class there's some interesting point/counterpoint in this section. It'd be interesting to see the comparisons between how well-to-do seniors make out vs. poorer seniors in SS payments. - mig
[2011-09-02 15:27:43] - a: the main point is that unless you fix the underlying problem (too many retirees, not enough workers), then you're just providing a temporary fix (i just pulled the decade time frame out of my ass, but i needed a quick chunk of time reference). - mig
[2011-09-02 15:03:03] - yeah, the employee contribution was hugely decreased for some reason. ~a
[2011-09-02 15:02:29] - a: Estimates vary, but I think even rosy scenarios admit it's going to be in the tens of trillions of dollars over the next few decades. -Paul
[2011-09-02 15:01:23] - "At best you may buy yourself a decade before the day of financial reckoning" why? ~a
[2011-09-02 14:56:11] - in other words that yeah, it's not sustainable... but it's doesn't require like, huge unimaginable reforms to stay sustainable. there are small changes (like daniel's proposed 0.1% increase over 20 years) which will make it solvent (although arguably, it will still be "broken" in other ways) - aaron
[2011-09-02 14:54:45] - someone said on NPR that social security's financial insolvency is exaggerated, and that even without any changes SS could keep paying all its bills through 2036 and 3/4 of what retirees expect after that. i found that surprising - aaron
[2011-09-02 14:41:02] - They're saying that extending the payroll tax holiday will be a part of any jobs deal worked out between Obama and Congress. I'm not convinced, but "they" are vociferous. SS is definitely regressive. But at the same time it does benefit lower income individuals more than higher (redistributive), even if not as profoundly as a far-leftist would prefer. -- Xpovos
[2011-09-02 14:37:25] - oh wait, I read employer in place of employee, nevermind. - mig
[2011-09-02 14:36:35] - also I'm guessing the reduced employer contribution was possibly to stimulate job growth rather than directly trying to increase revenue for social security. - mig
[2011-09-02 14:33:11] - a: no argument from me that it's regressive, it certainly is. I don't think removing the cap or putting the employer contribution back to where it was will solve the fundamental problem of it (too many retierees, not enough workers). At best you may buy yourself a decade before the day of financial reckoning. - mig
[2011-09-02 14:28:32] - the 106800 cap is almost a regressive "tax"
~a[2011-09-02 14:28:09] - ok. or we could get rid of the 106800 cap. or we could change the 4% thing back to where it was. if social security is going bankrupt, the solution was to decrease the employee contribution by 50%? wtf? who's idea was that and how the hell did it pass? ~a
[2011-09-02 14:21:55] - a: i dunno, but to be fair that's going to be a huge problem regardless of whatever major reform that needs to happen with SS. - mig
[2011-09-02 14:14:29] - mig: "use retierment savings accounts" ok . . . but what do we do with the people who are currently withdrawing from SS? ~a
[2011-09-02 14:12:42] - "Most liberals want the program to redistribute wealth to needy" how does it redistribute? "Retirement benefit calculations are based on your average earnings during a lifetime of work under the Social Security system" i understand there's a difference between based on and preportional to, but i still think it's not exactly redistributing wealth. ~a
[2011-09-02 14:08:51] - a: i don't recall the specifics of it, but I believe it had to do with allowing people the option to use retierment savings (or investments, i don't remember which) accounts instead of the uniform payouts that we're using now. - mig
[2011-09-02 14:04:42] - "you get out everything you put in (minus taxes)" minus taxes unless you have a roth401k like me, YAY. ~a
[2011-09-02 14:04:07] - "out of curiosity were you for the Bush privitazation plan" maybe. which plan? ~a
[2011-09-02 14:03:52] - "considering how deep in the hole social security is about to be" how deep? didn't they say in the early 1990s that it only had a few years left? ~a
[2011-09-02 13:43:05] - a: Hmmmm, so social security is worth it because it saves money from welfare? I can't imagine that's the case considering how deep in the hole social security is about to be. -Paul
[2011-09-02 13:04:31] - a: We'll make an objectivist out of you yet. -- Xpovos
[2011-09-02 13:00:44] - "That some people who would otherwise not save money for retirement are forced to save" That some people who would otherwise not save money won't be forced to leach off of welfare when they become disabled/seniors. ~a
[2011-09-02 12:32:49] - lunch time. brb. ~a
[2011-09-02 12:28:37] - a: out of curiosity were you for the Bush privitazation plan (maybe not all the details, but just the general idea behind it)? - mig
[2011-09-02 12:27:54] - a: I probably wouldn't, since a 401(k) isn't managed by the government and you get out everything you put in (minus taxes), whereas there is a much less direct connection between what you put in to social security and what you get. -Paul
[2011-09-02 12:24:51] - a: I think you'll find very few people join with you. Most liberals want the program to redistribute wealth to needy. And most conservatives want people to be able to choose their own money paths, as Paul's getting at. -- Xpovos
[2011-09-02 12:23:35] - a: the employee gets the interest off the savings bond; they just get less interest because the government rate is being pushed down by the artificial market and the government pays less interest on it's borrowing--which is what I proposed it use to fund the security aspects of the program. -- Xpovos
[2011-09-02 12:22:58] - a: What's the good that outweighs the harm? That some people who would otherwise not save money for retirement are forced to save? -Paul
[2011-09-02 11:56:50] - here's a question for you guys: if your 401k was mandatory would you call it a tax? ~a
[2011-09-02 11:55:25] - well in a perfect world, the employee would get to keep the interest. and not use US savings bonds. i like the way 401k works; i wish social security was more like 401k/ira. ~a
[2011-09-02 11:48:57] - a: So, in your opinion a more streamlined government mandated forcible savings program would not be a tax. E.g. 5% of your salary goes into U.S. savings bonds held in your name. Then the government takes some of the additional money it gets from this (reduced interest rates, hello) to provide a (necessarily small) social safety net for retirees and disabled workers? -- X
[2011-09-02 11:31:37] - paul: despite those huge problems (i.e. the two i named), i think it does more good than harm. ~a
[2011-09-02 11:30:48] - mig: yeah, i guess. ok, so it's sometimes called a "tax", but i guess i don't think of it as one. since all (or most) of the money it takes in is paid back out. ~a
[2011-09-02 11:27:56] - hehe, i do. ~a
[2011-09-02 11:03:18] - Payroll taxes in general are important for that beacuse you never have to write the government a big check. Well, most people don't. -- Xpovos
[2011-09-02 11:02:56] - mig: I'm not a fan of perception is reality type thinking. Either for my cause or against it. I think that in general the people who know enough to bother voting on it as an issue generally know (at least conceptually) that it happens. The obfuscation is still important because it hides the pain. -- Xpovos
[2011-09-02 10:48:46] - xpovos: but yeah i would wonder how the perception of entitlement programs would change if people actually perceived their real tax burden as a combination of all the things taken out of their paycheck vs. just looking at their federal income tax withholdings. - mig
[2011-09-02 10:45:02] - The only difference I can see between social security and taxes is that the money taken for social security is taken for (supposadly) one specific purpose while the money taken for income taxes goes to all sorts of things. But conceptually they aren't really that different. Money is taken from your paycheck and redirected somewhere else by the government. - mig
[2011-09-02 10:42:39] - a: isn't the money that is taken to fund social security referred to as a payroll tax? - mig
[2011-09-02 10:38:19] - a: I'm also curious why you like social security, despite mentioning those "huge problems". -Paul
[2011-09-02 10:31:52] - a: I think that obfuscation is critical to the success of the system as it exists, but I take your point. I'm curious how you define taxes then, though. -- Xpovos
[2011-09-02 10:27:00] - *its
[2011-09-02 10:26:40] - it has a second big problem that most people don't discuss: you're actually paying TWICE the amount into social security and don't know it because your employer is required to take it out of your money before they negotiate your salary. ~a
[2011-09-02 10:25:07] - xpovos: i think that social security != taxes. i haven't read the debate yet so i'm not sure exactly what you're asking. social security != taxes and i actually like social security despite it's huge problems (the money you put in is paying CURRENT seniors: this is a broken concept). ~a
[2011-09-02 10:20:37] - mig: how is this more important than i think? ~a
[2011-09-02 10:17:31] - a: Reviewing the 2001 conversation that sparked today's sub-post... do you still think that "social security != taxes"? I think that's one of those points that people might change their opinion on as they age; and particularly in light of the political environment of the past decade. -- Xpovos
[2011-09-02 09:52:13] - http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/martin-luther-king-a-drum-major-if-you-say-so/2011/08/25/gIQAmmUkeJ_story.html context: more important than you think. - mig
[2011-09-01 14:48:49] - oh wait, that was back in 2004! wow okay. - aaron
[2011-09-01 14:37:12] - huh. i never heard about wayne knight losing weight. apparently he's about 200 pounds now - aaron
[2011-08-31 16:23:41] - http://rivals.yahoo.com/ncaa/football/blog/dr_saturday/post/SEC-or-bust-Finally-Texas-A-amp-M-tells-the-Bi?urn=ncaaf-wp5652 texas a&m splits from the big 12, probably going to SEC. The SEC will then need a 14th. Monitoring the VT to SEC speculation over the next several months will be a lot of fun. - mig
[2011-08-31 14:38:20] - http://www.dw-world.de/dw/article/0,,15353693,00.html in many german cities, muslim arbiters are settling criminal cases before law enforcement can bring the cases to court, resulting in a "parallel justice system" - aaron
[2011-08-31 14:33:42] - mig: hmm, so i guess you're saying it's possible the US was providing things like eavesdropping equipment, and air traffic controllers, refueling stations and stuff which weren't withdrawn. i guess that's possible! i wonder if that stuff is US Armed Forces or not? i guess that's plausible. that's another good theory. that or just dressing up like foreigners - aaron
[2011-08-31 14:27:20] - mig: the house democrats voting on House Vote 493 were voting "nay" only "for show" because they knew the Obama administration were going too keep these US troops deployed no matter what (their vote would have no impact.) - aaron
[2011-08-31 14:26:19] - and to be clear, the base of this argument is that you believe that house vote 493 (the vote to reject US Armed Forces participation in libya) was meaningless, because the Obama administration shirked the results of the vote, and despite (allegedly) withdrawing all fighter planes and warships, that they secretly kept US troops involved.... so , (continued...) - aaron
[2011-08-31 14:26:08] - http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2011/08/30/america-s-secret-libya-war-u-s-spent-1-billion-on-covert-ops-helping-nato.html this is my last salvo on the topic. And the withdrawal stuff you're posting is way back from april. The vote was in June, and I'm not sure that anyone was arguing over whether we were involved in Libya or not, just whether it was legal. - mig
[2011-08-31 14:20:18] - mig: admit that either. do you think i'm being unfair? is there any possible evidence or news source or something which would make you say, "okay, we have no US troops in libya?" - aaron
[2011-08-31 14:19:13] - mig: like i know we had some CIA operatives, so maybe we also had like - secret ground troops? is that what you mean? or maybe like generals that are telling people what to do, but they're dressed up like civilians and nobody knows they're there? i feel like there's literally no possible evidence which would get you to admit we withdrew, but i feel like you won't - aaron
[2011-08-31 14:17:51] - mig: hmm it didn't? okay. this article also mentions our warships. i don't know. i guess theoretically we could have personnel other than those jets and warships mentioned in the wikipedia article - aaron
[2011-08-31 13:55:24] - certainly the jet fighters reduced our role, but that didn't end our involvement. - mig
[2011-08-31 13:54:36] - aaron: is there any evidence that all our personnel left libya after the vote? That seems to be what you're implying, and for that I would definitely want to see some actual evidence to that respect other than "there are no new articles about the us after june". - mig
[2011-08-31 13:45:12] - mig: it seems like there's a lot of documentation as to which countries are involved, public statements from Secretary of Defense saying U.S fighter jets would be withdrawn, physical proof that the U.S was involved before and a lack of physical proof that the U.S was involved after but, i understand how from a philosophical standpoint, none of that is evidence - aaron
[2011-08-31 13:43:54] - mig: hmm i thought i gave you lots of evidence but i guess not. i guess theoretically space aliens could be involved in the conflict too, let's not discount that. just because we haven't seen any doesn't meant they're not there right? an absence of evidence isn't evidence of absence - aaron
[2011-08-31 13:38:49] - that role ended after the vote on the 24th. - mig
[2011-08-31 13:38:20] - aaron: no, there was never any ground troops deployed i think. Certainly not us ground troops and probably not nato troops either. And certainly the US reduced its role to one of support. But that limited role is still involvement in the conflict, and one that we dedicated resources and personnel to, which congress ended up not authorizing. and there's no evidence
[2011-08-31 13:33:43] - aaron: remind me never to sell you anything! also, I tend to try to hit unsubscribe first if it doesnt stop then I hit spam... ~g
[2011-08-31 13:27:08] - g: i've marked some of my friends' emails as spam when they were trying to sell me something
- aaron[2011-08-31 13:26:55] - g: yes. a lot of times i just mark stuff as spam even if it has an unsubscribe link - aaron
[2011-08-31 13:18:49] - If you try and unsubscribe and the website's unsubscribe page is broken do you mark it as spam? ~g
[2011-08-31 13:18:03] - xpovos: (and other android users) I like today's free app from Amazon Marketplace -> Swamp Defense its a tower defense game I played for all of 2 mins, so no gaurantees that it is any good. ~g
[2011-08-31 13:07:23] - hmm although, i will concede that if the US had already withdrew their Armed Forces involvement as of April/May - then that first house vote probably didn't matter very much, so I could see that being a lot of democrats wanting to appear "anti-war" without actually getting anything done - aaron
[2011-08-31 13:01:39] - it sounds like US withdrew their warplanes in april and their allies like norway and france continued bombing operations in their absence? i don't think US ever had ground troops did they? that was kind of a sticking point - aaron
[2011-08-31 13:01:09] - mig: you mean like this headline from april? or cbsnews that's probably more reliable - aaron
[2011-08-31 12:58:36] - france vows to continue bombing libya from July... Norway pulled its air force in august... hmm... oh! - aaron
[2011-08-31 12:54:52] - one would think if that many troops left the conflict it would make major headlines, would it not? - mig
[2011-08-31 12:53:55] - mig: it seems like your viewpoint is very very easy to prove, just a single US warship or airplane or some dude in camo on facebook, whatever. jum webb saying "US is providing two thirds of the troops" in a june 29th article where he's talking in the past tense, idk, that's not very concrete right? - aaron
[2011-08-31 12:52:50] - i mean it's just suspicious, i'm finding tons and tons of articles about specific operations, "this french bomber etc," "norway dropped X bombs", and nothing about US involvement after June. i know a lack of evidence doesn't count as evidence, but when you're trying to argue that the US isn't somewhere, what can i provide other than a lack of evidence? - aaron
[2011-08-31 12:49:36] - hmm but it doesn't really have involvement over time, so it's hard to tell. i found a few articles talking about UK/French ground troops after June but nothing about US troops. I don't know man. - aaron
[2011-08-31 12:43:55] - mig: hmm i guess that's one theory. that maybe some US troops are still there, and just nobody's reporting on it. oh! here's something which breaks down NATO involvement by country - aaron
[2011-08-31 12:36:38] - provider of troops, and also one of the biggest financial contributors, I think it's reasonable to conclude that with that much military activity over the past month attributed to just "NATO" that some of it was US involvement. - mig
[2011-08-31 12:35:09] - http://www.nytimes.com/2011/06/29/us/politics/29powers.html "When you have an operation that goes on for months, costs billions of dollars, where the United States is providing two-thirds of the troops, even under the NATO fig leaf ... " I will go out on a limb and take Jim Webb on his word on this one. There was a lot of NATO activitiy, and if we're one of the biggest
[2011-08-31 12:30:39] - i don't understand the theoretical motive considering that our NATO allies were handling this fine on their own. and wouldn't it be really easy to find evidence that this happened? wouldn't it be easy to find, "oh, here's this battleship the US provided" or something like that? - aaron
[2011-08-31 12:25:58] - like it says we continued to sustain CIA operatives in Libya, but they're not in the Armed Forces so i don't think they count. and it mentions stuff like, Italy launched their first drones in Libya in July after the deadline, so other NATO members were doing stuff, I just can't find anything the US did - aaron
[2011-08-31 12:20:27] - mig: so when you say you have "no reason to believe they withdrew" i guess i would consider the fact that there's lots of detailed NATO involvement, some of it tracable to the 13 other NATO members (like an italian predator drone in August) but nothing tracable to the US, i'd consider that a reason to believe that US withdrew - aaron
[2011-08-31 12:16:50] - mig: oh okay. i guess i just believe in ABC news and Al Jazeera which talk about lots of different US ships/planes/casualties and stuff and then they don't talk about anything after the deadline. it's all pretty well categorized/organized on that WP page. - aa
[2011-08-31 11:42:23] - aaron: I have no reason to believe they did withdraw. Even after the vote, he was continuing to maintain that the actions in Libya were still legal, and made no indication that they were going to stop. - mig
[2011-08-31 11:25:46] - Wedding Pics on facebook!
[2011-08-31 11:08:23] - it's clear from this page that the effort in Libya was not just a US effort. i wouldn't be surprised if US troops pulled out around or before June 24th just because we could, you know, use DoD funds to supply things like drones/planes/equipment to other countries and be involved that way. but you think US troops were involved anyways?? after the deadline? - aaron
[2011-08-31 11:06:06] - i definitely see mention of things like a USAF F-15E being shot down in march... a NATO MQ-8 (drone helicopter) being shot down on June 21st... and then they mention continued NATO involvement through August, but they don't explicitly mention US involvement - and there's a lot of countries in NATO so idunno -
[2011-08-31 11:02:07] - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2011_military_intervention_in_Libya this page is really really detailed. wow, thanks wikipedia! - aaron
[2011-08-31 11:01:31] - Wow, just wow. I know the Eagles have been spending a lot of money this offseason, but this is quite the shock. - mig
[2011-08-31 11:01:06] - mig: being more specific, you're fairly certain we still had US armed forces engaged in libya after the 24th? i mean, intuitively i think you're probably right, given the outrage i've heard and stuff. i just can't find anything on it. - aaron
[2011-08-31 10:56:34] - aaron: i'm fairly certain our military involvement in libya did not end on the 24th. - mig
[2011-08-31 10:53:51] - well regardless i guess we're kind of on a tangent; we can both agree that many democrats (at least 30 or 40) voted against both bills, so a significant percentage of house democrats are openly against aggression in libya, and a surprising (to me) percentage of republicans are for it as well - aaron
[2011-08-31 10:49:45] - mig: the 112th bill is really short and easy to read (wow!) but it basically was asking for permission to use US armed forces for a year, so yeah i guess if US was providing things like air strikes, using US Air Force planes after June 24th then i guess he would have been in violation of the bill; that would be bad - aaron
[2011-08-31 10:46:29] - it sounds like you think that the results of the first vote were a "pretend vote" or he ignored the results of it or something, or the democrats were voting against it just "for show", i'm not really convinced yet. maybe you can find evidence the US armed forces got involved afterwards, or some military expert explaining why US armed forces aren't a big deal? - aaron
[2011-08-31 10:44:29] - mig: i'm not really contesting anything about the war or that "oh obama should have gone to war" or "oh it was unconstitutional", i'm just arguing that this was a vote which mattered, obama respected the results of the vote, and democrats voted against the president resulting in something meaningful (no US Armed Forces involvement) - aaron
[2011-08-31 10:43:26] - mig: i can't really tell if that link you posted is related to House Vote 493 or not. given that it's dated June 17 (2 weeks before House Vote 493 was held) i'd be very surprised if it was - aaron
[2011-08-31 10:33:42] - which the president's own legal counsel concluded was illegal without congress's authorization. - mig
[2011-08-31 10:32:59] - aaron: the ny times description of the 1st bill is "Rejects Authorization of Limited Military Involvement in Libya". I am pretty sure that meant they were rejecting what the military was currently doing at the time (the air support and some bombing, "kinetic" action, etc) ...
[2011-08-31 10:06:18] - mig: sorry i don't understand "not complying", i might not totally understand the subtext of the first bill. it looks to me the result was, "don't use US arm.ed forces in libya" - did the president not adhere to that? - aaron
[2011-08-31 10:00:10] - mig: i see a lot of stuff about armed forces in libya but it's always talking about UK armed forces and stuff. maybe it happened, maybe my google-fu is weak today. - aaron
[2011-08-31 09:58:30] - Now, if congress had done something else to the president for not complying (like say, began impeachment proceedings), I would give the 1st bill a little more credence. - mig
[2011-08-31 09:58:24] - mig: so the president ignored the results of the first bill, and america sent in their armed forces into libya? i don't understand what you mean by "libya went on". i'm surprised that america would send in armed forces after that first bill failed; i guess i must have had my television off that week. - aaron
[2011-08-31 09:57:24] - mig: regardless, i guess the votes somewhat support my point that there's significant democratic dissent against action in libya; but it also defeats my point because it seems like the republican vote is significantly fractured, particularly in the vote on allocating DoD funds - aaron
[2011-08-31 09:57:07] - aaron: it's 2 different bills, but the first one didn't DO anything. Libya still went on regardless of it passing. The 2nd bill was the REAL bill because the war could not continue without funding. - mig
[2011-08-31 09:55:38] - a: it seems like a lot of rational people might think, "i don't want american armed forces getting involved; but if we've already allocated money to the DoD, it's OK for the DoD to use those funds in libya". honestly, i think a lot of americans probably think that way, that having american troops in libya sends a stronger statement than allocating american funds - aaron
[2011-08-31 09:54:31] - mig: weren't those two different bills? one was for them to allow use of the armed forces, one was to allow them to use funds allocated to the DoD? i just want to make it clear this wasn't some time (like for the Patriot Act) where democrats were like, "oh okay we're going to support the president for the REAL bill, but we'll vote against him symbolically" - aaron
[2011-08-30 16:40:02] - vote 1 was largely symbolic (becuase it didn't really force the president to do anything), but the 2nd vote would have actually had some actual force behind it had it passed. - mig
[2011-08-30 16:32:08] - vote 1 breakdown. vote 2 breakdown. - mig
[2011-08-30 16:29:02] - aaron: Well, if you're going by the 1st vote it seems that way. The 2nd vote (and I think the more important one) the democratic opposition to it gets cut in half. - mig
[2011-08-30 16:23:58] - (sorry, i got the percentages backwards. about 40% of the democrats and 95% of the republicans don't support the president being granted war authority in libya, but you know what i mean - aaron
[2011-08-30 16:22:15] - but again, it's like 60% of the democrats and 95% of the republicans. democrats are like, "okay let me think this through, what do I think about libya" and republicans just seem like they're always voting party lines. (well, except for cool ones like ron paul and about 6 other names who always seem to come up, like when we were talking about the patriot act before) - aaron
[2011-08-30 16:20:46] - mig: i wish i could just find a big table or something broken down by party. but i'm guessing the house democrats were split roughly 90 to 123, ish, meaning that like 60% of them support the president's actions in libya (or, are indifferent enough to vote along party lines) - aaron
[2011-08-30 16:16:33] - mig: yeah, lots of democrats abandoned obama on libya, or at least with their voting records in the house - aaron
[2011-08-30 14:34:00] - aaron: were there any democrats other than dennis kucinich being vocally against libya? Maybe I'm wrong but it seems like the reactions from the democrats have ranged from hesistant approval to indifference, but not opposition really. - mig
[2011-08-30 14:21:40] - aaron: I'll be honest I don't know for sure. The weiner scandal is the only one I can think of involving a democrat. - mig
[2011-08-30 14:17:55] - mig: yeah, i thought about mentioning the republican sex scandal stuff but i thought that was kind of unfair. is it just me or are republicans disproportionately involved in those kinds of scandals? it's a really strange coincidence if it's true (and not just confirmation bias or something) - aaron
[2011-08-30 13:56:51] - where this whole rift stuff began. - mig
[2011-08-30 13:56:21] - vinnie: No, you are probably right, I didn't think it was always there. And I think I agree with your statement that there was definitely more solidarity, especially during the early part of the Bush presidency. If I had to pinpoint I'd guess it was probably during the last year of Bush. - mig
[2011-08-30 13:46:13] - Although I'll be honest I think the "Democrats are always fighting each other" is a little overblown too. Like I know gay marriage and to some extent immigration are thorny issues they fight with each other about, but they seem fairly party-liner on some others (entitlements). Likewise this may be my own bias, but on what else do they squabble with each other about. - mi
[2011-08-30 13:37:49] - aaron: I guess though, going with your original definition I can't aruge that, I can't even begin to count the number of "social conservatives" that have been embroiled in some sort of sex scandal. - mig
[2011-08-30 13:27:49] - mig: hmm, well, i agree "partisan games" can be expanded to mean some other things like, arguably, filibustering, mudslinging, stuff like that, which i think both parties are guilty of. i don't know enough politicians personally to say whether republicans use hyperbole more than democrats or anything though - aaron
[2011-08-30 13:25:54] - mig: but "on the record", i think maybe 7% of them would be in favor of those things. democrats, in my opinion, hold more true to their personal beliefs instead of compromising towards party lines. like, i think more than 7% of democratic politicians, for example, are vocally against our involvement in libya - aaron
[2011-08-30 13:24:59] - aaron: I would expand on that definition a bit to include miscontruing other people's policy views to suit your own purposes, like for example responding to someone who says we need entitlement reform by saying that want to throw out old people to die in the streets. - mig
[2011-08-30 13:24:17] - mig: i think probably 60% of republican politicians (off the record) would agree that there's scientific evidence supporting climate change, and maybe 40% of them would support american involvement in libya (i think that's a better example) - aaron
[2011-08-30 13:21:15] - mig: i think the best i can come up with, is i think republicans are more willing to misconstrue their personal beliefs so that they align with that of their party. for example, with regards to things such as climate change, or our policies in iraq; - aaron
[2011-08-30 13:10:32] - before the Tea Party really took hold, I would have agreed that the republicans showed way more solidarity than dems. but there is a big rift in the GOP right now, and probably there always was but didn't have a name. I think that must have been my own bias, not knowing the disagreements that go on on the other side - vinnie
[2011-08-30 13:01:16] - mig: that's a hard term to define, i'll have to think about it. - aaron
[2011-08-30 12:49:58] - aaron: I suppose it would depend on the definition of the term "partisan games". I might have a broader scope of that term than you do. - mig
[2011-08-30 12:32:13] - hmm, 7 of 90, that's disturbingly close to my SWAG of "14% of republicans are fiscal conservatives", i wonder if that number is anywhere close to accurate. man i hope it's higher - aaron
[2011-08-30 12:25:41] - mig: sure, but there's a difference between "people in the GOP" and "the GOP". 7 of 90 people supported rand paul's budget proposal; it's not like it's the democrats shutting down republican's good ideas. it's everybody shutting down rand paul's good ideas. - aaron
[2011-08-30 12:17:09] - those are compromises? ~a
[2011-08-30 12:16:13] - aaron: It's not like stuff like people in the GOP haven't been proposing anything. Rand Paul has a budget proposal. Paul Ryan has his own budget proposal, and both are pretty detailed. - mig
[2011-08-30 12:12:46] - a: i agree somewhat, although i feel like the "fiscal conservatives" are a vast vast minority. i really hope they're not! but... i feel it's like. 14% of republicans maybe. - aaron
[2011-08-30 12:11:31] - mig: i disagree. if your philosophy is reducing the role of government, you need to pass legislation which reduces the role of government; such as passing legislation which reduces taxes or decreases spending. by blocking all legislation, you just preserve the status quo - aaron
[2011-08-30 12:11:03] - aaron: well weather it's the "fox news party" or TP, miguel brings up a good point. in the past few years, there has been a rift between the "social conservatives" and the "fiscal conservatives". that breaks our statement that there is total solidarity amongst republicans. ~a
[2011-08-30 12:10:43] - the one personified by ron paul or the one personified by sarah palin? i don't really understand the sentiment of your sentence sorry - aaron
[2011-08-30 12:10:30] - aaron: well if your philosophy is supposadly reducing the role of government (at least in theory), then it's not too shocking that you'd be attempting to stop legislation most of the time, I would think. - mig
prev <-> next