ptown_trojans_1;1477888 wrote:It's Noonan, who as an obvious bias.
But, if true, heads should roll agree.

Didn't she support Obama in '08?

ptown_trojans_1;1477885 wrote:What's better, the current policy? 93K dead in the worst humanitarian conflict since Rwanda.
Also, the rebels are splitting into hard line camps, meaning anti-Western clans are taking more and more control. That means whatever takes shape after Asad is morel ikly to be anti-Aemrican and anti-Israel as a result.
The rest of the region is already sending arms, but hell the rebels want more U.S. arms.

Now, sure it easy to say, not our problem, been there done that. But, it is not so simple.
Where e like it or not, the U.S. still is involved in the region and still has influence.
Ignoring it ans just saying we should totally stay out of it ignores reality and the geopolitical situation in the region.

Does that mean $1B in air strikes and troops. No.
It means a controlled, aide to the rebels, ones we know, and to ensure the civil war does not fall into chaos any more and does not spill over even further into Lebanon, Iraq, Turkey, and Jordan.

US to arm one side, Russia to arm the other. It's just Cold War bs. What could possibly make anyone in the government think that this time will be any better than all the rest of the times we armed "rebels"? In 10-20 years, when we are attacked again by the same people we gave arms and training to, I hope no one is surprised.

tk421;1478089 wrote:US to arm one side, Russia to arm the other. It's just Cold War bs. What could possibly make anyone in the government think that this time will be any better than all the rest of the times we armed "rebels"? In 10-20 years, when we are attacked again by the same people we gave arms and training to, I hope no one is surprised.

That's what we do. That is how we conduct foreign policy over the last 100 years.
And in the grand scheme of things, arming the rebels during the Cold War worked, it helped lead to a Soviet defeat.
Now, the blunder of abandoning Afghanistan in 89-91.
We should be able to learn from those mistakes over the next few years.

QuakerOats;1477935 wrote: We have the Chief Counsel now involved, and an incredibly uncanny number of personal visits by the top IRS official(s) to the White House. Something is very, very wrong.

Ehhh, someone will fall on the sword. Maybe Carney. Carney looks like he HATES going to work these days, anyway.

ptown_trojans_1;1478101 wrote:That's what we do. That is how we conduct foreign policy over the last 100 years.
And in the grand scheme of things, arming the rebels during the Cold War worked, it helped lead to a Soviet defeat.
Now, the blunder of abandoning Afghanistan in 89-91.
We should be able to learn from those mistakes over the next few years.

lol, learn from the mistakes. So naive. You have wayyyyyy more faith than I do in our government, which is exactly zero.

gut;1478121 wrote:Ehhh, someone will fall on the sword. Maybe Carney. Carney looks like he HATES going to work these days, anyway.

Have you seen Obama? He looks like he's aged 10 years in the last few months.

Manhattan Buckeye;1478409 wrote:Have you seen Obama? He looks like he's aged 10 years in the last few months.

I guess the campaign fund-raising must not be as easy as it used to be.

http://www.defenseone.com/technology/2013/07/nsas-big-dig/67406/

QuakerOats;1478661 wrote:http://www.defenseone.com/technology/2013/07/nsas-big-dig/67406/

You are are just now reading this?
Shit son, that is old news. Wired has been reporting on that for years.
Post last year on it:
http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2012/03/ff_nsadatacenter/
I've known about it since the Army Corps through out some A/E firms for design specs.

The NSA needs that much space when you think about how much data is out there, not just here, but around the world.
And the contractor role is the same as it has been since post-9/11. Nothing new there either.

This is the nature of warfare in the 21st century: Information assurance, domination, and defense. In order to do that, you need massive facilities like in Utah.
Just like building the massive nuclear weapons complex during the Cold War.

tk421;1478345 wrote:lol, learn from the mistakes. So naive. You have wayyyyyy more faith than I do in our government, which is exactly zero.

Yeah naive about those guys that tracked Osama or who have tracked down terrorists using data and drones.

ptown_trojans_1;1478691 wrote:Yeah naive about those guys that tracked Osama or who have tracked down terrorists using data and drones.

The military is the only part of the federal government I have any confidence in. The rest is bloated, costly, largely corrupt, overly intrusive, and out of control.

believer;1478697 wrote:The military is the only part of the federal government I have any confidence in.

At a cost of $800B+ a year, I should hope so.

As for the rest of it being a pile of steaming shit, maybe Boatshoes is right: we just aren't spending enough.

ptown_trojans_1;1478691 wrote:Yeah naive about those guys that tracked Osama or who have tracked down terrorists using data and drones.

naive about arming rebels who will end up being no better than the government we help them overthrow, just like every other time we've interfered in some country.

gut;1478703 wrote:At a cost of $800B+ a year, I should hope so.

Although I'm a HUGE critic of the waste and cronyism in the military industrial complex, I have every confidence in the men and women serving this once great country.

tk421;1478750 wrote:naive about arming rebels who will end up being no better than the government we help them overthrow, just like every other time we've interfered in some country.

Most of those were made at the time of the greater overall threat from the Soviet Union. The world was the chessboard, and the U.S. had to do whatever to contain the spread and power of the Soviets. So, yes, maybe all arms deals with rebels did not work. But, given the Cold War, one can easily understand why they were made.

And, currently, the situation in Syria in not sustainable and the U.S. cannot sit idly by. That is the nature of the geopolitics in the region.

Obama "phony scandals......

IRS scandal is not a &#8220hony scandal”
Fast and Furious is not a &#8220hony scandal”
NSA is not a &#8220hony scandal
Obamacare is not a &#8220hony scandal”
Green energy company failures are not a &#8220hony scandal”
Pigford was not a &#8220hony scandal”
Benghazi is not a &#8220hony scandal”

The greatest phony in the U.S. government is named Barack Hussein Obama

Belly35;1478883 wrote:Obama "phony scandles" ........

If you can't blame Bush, it didn't happen.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/paulroderickgregory/2013/03/01/sequester-costs-750000-jobs-from-those-who-gave-us-the-four-million-job-stimulus/

Hey Boatshoes...good read for ya.

believer;1480643 wrote:http://www.forbes.com/sites/paulroderickgregory/2013/03/01/sequester-costs-750000-jobs-from-those-who-gave-us-the-four-million-job-stimulus/

Hey Boatshoes...good read for ya.

Don't let facts get in the way of Boatshoes' rants

Court upholds ruling against NYC beverage ban National Restaurant Association
The NY Supreme Court, Appellate Division, upheld the ruling that struck down the city’s ban on sugar-sweetened beverages over 16 ounces.
FULL ARTICLE



Imagine the millions wasted on this idiocy brought to you by the progressive, nanny-state, liberal 'intellectuals'. Liberalism has indeed evolved into a mental disease.

QuakerOats;1480692 wrote:Court upholds ruling against NYC beverage ban National Restaurant Association
The NY Supreme Court, Appellate Division, upheld the ruling that struck down the city’s ban on sugar-sweetened beverages over 16 ounces.
FULL ARTICLE



Imagine the millions wasted on this idiocy brought to you by the progressive, nanny-state, liberal 'intellectuals'. Liberalism has indeed evolved into a mental disease.

You do know most liberals, including nearly all in NYC, were against this right?
But, carry on with your generalities.

jmog;1480688 wrote:Don't let facts get in the way of Boatshoes' rants

Obviously not written by a Keynesian...I doubt Boat will even read it.

jmog;1480688 wrote:Don't let facts get in the way of Boatshoes' rants

Interesting that you would use that word.

From the article:

I prefer to look at the sequester using common sense instead of arcane Keynesian modeling.

The article is nothing bit a hit piece against the CBO and its evidence based arguments as to why the stimulus should have been passed and why the sequester shouldn't have. It is, as you would call my argument against the credibility of the mises institute, an ad hominem attack against the CBO and provides no evidence against its claims (which I did after disputing the credibility of the Mises institute). The CBO, fwiw is much more credible than the Mises institute or Forbes anyway for that matter.

The preponderance of the evidence indicates that the stimulus worked. The preponderance of the evidence indicates that the sequester will cost jobs...if anything public sector jobs by definition (thankfully we have had expansionary monetary policy throughout for monetary offset).

It's really not a hard concept. If you think tax raises would hurt output and employment in a depressed economy, (all conservatives apparently do) then spending cuts hurt output and employment in a depressed economy. They work through the same channel of aggregate demand. Your only hope against the latter is that it inspires people to take out loans, build up credit card debt, invest their money under their bed because they see government spending going down. That hasn't happened. The confidence fairy has not arrived. Luckily we have monetary offset from expansionary policy from the FED which is better than nothing.

The evidence is not on Mr. Gregory's side. The economy continues to suck after the sequester and the payroll tax raise. Private debt is increasing once again as people try to sustain their standard of living as money trickles out of the economy from spending cuts and tax raises.

I am the only liberal here. Surely you guys can do better than a Forbes goldbug who's "common sense" has been wrong about everything while keynesian IS-LM modeling + post-keynesian Wynne Godley Sectoral Balances has done pretty well.

QuakerOats;1480692 wrote:Court upholds ruling against NYC beverage ban National Restaurant Association
The NY Supreme Court, Appellate Division, upheld the ruling that struck down the city’s ban on sugar-sweetened beverages over 16 ounces.
FULL ARTICLE



Imagine the millions wasted on this idiocy brought to you by the progressive, nanny-state, liberal 'intellectuals'. Liberalism has indeed evolved into a mental disease.

Bans aren't a good idea. Pigovian taxes on behavior with harmful negative externalites are. :thumbup:

Should tax Fattening Foods instead. :thumbup:

gut;1480700 wrote:Obviously not written by a Keynesian...I doubt Boat will even read it.

Why do you doubt that? I read Jmog's austrian piece from Mises.