I used to be disgusted, and now I try to be amused.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski

hi

Hey.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

The source upon which I relied compared support for Trump's strike on Syria and support for Obama doing it, which equates the two pretty closely. Sounds reasonable to me. Not sure why you think the situations were so different that many people would approach them differently. What do you think is driving the fact that so many Republicans supported what Trump did but did not support the idea of Obama striking Syria?

Obama of course drew a line but then decided he'd check with congress before following through; he got limited bipartisan support in the Senate, except that every serious Republican candidate for President on the Foreign Relations Committee voted against it to feed their base. And the House Republicans rebelled and made it clear they wouldn't back use of force on anything but their terms, which ranged from all-in boots-on-the-ground shock-and-awe deployment to the odd and occasional symbolic strike, in each case combined with a plan for having good guys with guns who don't exist prevail with us getting out in less than a year.

There are several problems there: (1) elected Republicans, especially the rabid house ideologues and the Senate opportunist presidential candidates, just wanted to obstruct, policy (and so, in the view of many, country) be damned; (2) Republicans as a whole had wide views and no leadership able to unite them on anything but obstruction; and (3) the country itself didn't care what Obama did, they weren't going to pressure their elected officials to back the authorization of force. But the other problem was Obama making threats he didn't feel like he had authority to carry out, and ultimately deciding a negotiated settlement with Russia and Syria was preferable.

Syria right now is a third rail and Trump is toying with touching it. There is not a path that will not be severely questioned in hindsight. But the approach of skipping around on all the paths toying with every option is among the worst approaches possible.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

So your position is that if someone who isn't the government locks you in a room, your liberty hasn't been diminished at all? That's using the word in a way that makes no sense at all.

Nobody, govt or otherwise, is inhibiting one's liberty here. Nobody is being "locked in a room," or told they may not purchase something. Somebody (the market) is failing to provide a product someone else wants.

It's a little hard to tell, but I think what you're arguing here is that there is a meaningful deprivation of what I call liberty when the market doesn't give you meaningful choices, but that you advocate a system of legal rights in which the government should lack the power to do anything about it.

There is no deprivation of liberty when the market doesn't give you choices. I'd like a Rolls Royce for $20k. Market says? (Insert Richard Dawson Family Feud voice here.) "No." I want to buy a Tom Ford dinner jacket in day glo argyle. Market says: "No, again." Etc.

And the govt has the power to do something about a market that does not provide a service it deems important. It may provide that service itself.

It's hard to tell why, since having argued above that we mean different things when we talk about "liberty," you just rely on the word without explaining what you mean.

I've explained it exactly. It means you have the right to not have the govt unreasonably interfere with your activities. It is a negative right, and let's not pretend you don't know exactly what that means.

I'm asserting a view of liberty which is about preserving freedom for individuals, including the freedom to make meaningful choices.

That's an expansion which sounds nice, but is more utopia than liberty. It also leads to absurd results, as the limitations on what one could demand the govt compel others to provide him under the argument it is necessary to give him "meaningful choices" are illusory at best (if any could be argued to exist at all).

So let me try to make it without using "liberty." My point is that if regulated in the way you propose, healthcare markets will not let insurers offer certain kinds of insurance, will not let consumers buy that insurance, and will reduce mutually beneficial transactions between willing counterparts (e.g., doctors and patients). All of these parties are worse off in materially obvious ways. In what way do you think they are better off?

They are worse off. Citing the eminent philosopher and super-rationalist, Warren Zevon, "Life's terminal." You don't, under the concept of liberty, or rights, or anything else, get to tell the world it must provide you with "meaningful choices." That's nanny-statism on a truckload of steroids.

This is not an ideological point. This is based on recognition of the fact that innovation and dynamism are sapped, and society starts a rapid march to bankruptcy, when it starts thinking the state should make sure everyone has something like "meaningful choices."

Dude, once again I am responding to something *you* said in *this* exchange. If a few hours have passed and you no longer wish to describe yourself as libertarian, just say so.

I did not say I was a 100% Libertarian. I lean that way on certain matters, but socially, I'm possibly more liberal than you. Fiscally, I'm all over the place. I'd gut defense and shrink the govt to almost a size Grover Norquist would like. But I'd also support surgically wise interventions like Medicare expansion. I also loathe the Libertarian argument that our corrections can be better outsourced to private parties. I shift issue by issue.

Why? Many people believe that markets do a better job of allocating resources and providing many goods and services than the government does. (I would have put you in that category.). E.g., the government buys fighter jets from Boeing et al. instead of building them itself. That's not scary.

Sometimes they do, sometimes they do not. But that misses the point. The proper course for govt here is to expand Medicare to provide the services the market fails to provide. Compelling people to not only participate in a market, but also purchase certain policies, and insurers to provide certain policies, demands citizens engage in privity of contract with certain private parties. If you think there's no difference between the govt taxing a person and using those funds to purchase a fighter jet, and the govt telling a person he must contract with a non-govt entity for purchase of a certain product, you've lost sight of a necessary bright line between govts and corporations.

Oh, come now. There's a world of difference between defining objective criteria that health care has to meet and saying that you need to buy it from any private party that meets those criteria, and having the government pick winners or losers in other markets (hotels, shoes, etc.). Calling that a slippery slope suggests you can't draw a principled distinction.

I think we should be vigilant against both. And I'd argue being exercised about Trump milking the office for personal gain while supporting a law directing people to buy certain products from private insurers shows an inability to distinguish problematic one-off events from troubling systemic developments.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by ThurgreedMarshall

Even Spicer can't be this fucking stupid.

TM

I've not spoken to the man, but happened across him a couple weeks ago (waiting outside a men's room). Two observations:

1. He has a deer in headlights look;
2. He seems natively kinda jumpy; and,
3. His tux actually fit well (no "prole roll")

It's perhaps unfair to judge a person based on a few moments next to him, but he reminded me of those fidgety pledges of long begone frat days... Those guys who'd agree to any hazing, unable to grasp the respected response was to refuse. Eager, high-strung, and compelling the reaction Trump probably has after viewing every press conference: "Who's cousin is this guy? Did we really have to let him in?"

[Adder]

Originally Posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy

But the other problem was Obama making threats he didn't feel like he had authority to carry out, and ultimately deciding a negotiated settlement with Russia and Syria was preferable.

All of what you said, but also Obama decided that the options open to him wouldn't work and that lobbing a few bombs for its own sake was not worth it. He was right.

[ThurgreedMarshall]

Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski

So if Obama didn't hit them how can you equate the two decisions?

Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski

The idea of? embarrass yourself?

Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski

The idea of?

You're not really making this argument.

Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski

Howard Stern is discussing this now. He feels that Spicer needs to get fired.

Robin feels that his stupidity is the reason he was picked. Like, instead of talking about the issue, the whole country is talking about his gaffs. To me, that seems too thought out for these guys?

I get putting people in Cabinet positions that are adverse to the existence of their agency, but if that is goal wouldn't no press conferences be the answer?

Let's put it this way: When your job is to make up the most ludicrous, ridiculous shit to justify the tantrums and stupid decisions of the Administration for which you work, there is no way you can avoid saying asinine shit. When you combine this with the fact that it seems quite clear that Spicer doesn't believe that German Jews were Hitler's "own people," you end up right where he is.

TM

[Adder]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

I'd gut defense and shrink the govt to almost a size Grover Norquist would like. But I'd also support surgically wise interventions like Medicare expansion.

I don't think you appreciate how amusing these two sentences are together.

The proper course for govt here is to expand Medicare to provide the services the market fails to provide. Compelling people to not only participate in a market, but also purchase certain policies, and insurers to provide certain policies, demands citizens engage in privity of contract with certain private parties.

Force you to do business with government entity (Medicare) = freedom.

Force you to do business with a private company of your choosing = tyranny.

Okay.

you've lost sight of a necessary bright line between govts and corporations.

You're aware that corporations are creations of governments, right?

[Adder]

Originally Posted by ThurgreedMarshall

Let's put it this way: When your job is to make up the most ludicrous, ridiculous shit to justify the tantrums and stupid decisions of the Administration for which you work, there is no way you can avoid saying asinine shit. When you combine this with the fact that it seems quite clear that Spicer doesn't believe that German Jews were Hitler's "own people," you end up right where he is.

If I'm being charitable, I'm not sure that's what he was trying to say, but rather than he meant Hitler didn't use chemical weapons on the battlefield or against towns and cities.

Of course the problems are (1) the point that doing that is morally worse than rounding up and systematically exterminating people with chemicals is not valid, and (2) this group's track record does not afford them any benefit of the doubt, up to and including not being able to see #1.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

I don't think you appreciate how amusing these two sentences are together.

Medicare expansion makes sense given the realities at hand.

Force you to do business with government entity (Medicare) = freedom.

No one's forcing anyone to do business with Medicare. Only those who cannot buy what they'd like in the private market would need to use this option.

You're aware that corporations are creations of governments, right?

You're aware not saying anything was about 5X more preferable to saying something this dumb.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally Posted by Adder

If I'm being charitable, I'm not sure that's what he was trying to say, but rather than he meant Hitler didn't use chemical weapons on the battlefield or against towns and cities.

Of course the problems are (1) the point that doing that is morally worse than rounding up and systematically exterminating people with chemicals is not valid, and (2) this group's track record does not afford them any benefit of the doubt, up to and including not being able to see #1.

PR101 (which you would hope the guy would be given) is NEVER compare to Hitler.

case in point

[Adder]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

Medicare expansion makes sense given the realities at hand.

Okay, but it's still expanding one of the biggest (the biggest?) non-defense portions of the government. Which sounds like it will be difficult to get into a bathtub.

[ThurgreedMarshall]

Originally Posted by Sebby

She was smart. You always destroy the paper trail. Even the worst inference against you, or obstruction charge (which alone wouldn't be raised against a candidate for high office), beats getting caught with anything.

Originally Posted by ThurgreedMarshall

Okay, this is the perfect example of the disconnect that seems to exist between your ears. You seem to be completely convinced that Hillary committed a crime and you type something like this to support your inference. Yet, you also seem completely convinced there is nothing there when it comes to the current FBI investigation into collusion between Russian operatives and the Trump campaign/Administration even though almost everyone who works for him had contact with those Russian operatives, he has considerable business relationships with Russians close to Putin, and refuses to say anything negative about Russia.

How do you reconcile these two stances?

I don't think I ever got an answer on this. No matter. I'm sure you'll take the latest Manafort revelation in stride. Under the table payments that match the ledger discovered relating to the Ukraine payouts detailing his pro-Russia work don't prove a thing when it comes to collusion. That's true. But let's add this to the amazing amount of contacts, payments, and relationships Trump's people had to Russia.

http://thehill.com/policy/internatio...payouts-report

I'm guessing we can skip over Kushner's failure to disclose dozens of meetings with foreign leaders (including ones with Sergey Kislyak, the Russian ambassador to the U.S., and Sergey Gorkov, the head of Russia’s state-owned Vnesheconombank) when he applied for top-secret security clearance too?

Let's move on to your Rice garbage. Does the fact that no one seems to think Rice did anything wrong mean anything to your analysis? The classified docs Nunes was handed by the Administration which he based all of his garbage on contradict his conclusion, Trump's bullshit, and yours, when it comes to Rice.

http://www.cnn.com/2017/04/11/politi...ims/index.html

I guess you'll avoid saying you were wrong by telling us you need to personally read the classified documents if they're ever released. Maybe something even better?

TM

[ThurgreedMarshall]

Originally Posted by Adder

If I'm being charitable, I'm not sure that's what he was trying to say, but rather than he meant Hitler didn't use chemical weapons on the battlefield or against towns and cities.

I realize he wasn't trying to say that Hitler didn't gas his own people. His internal views are what make it possible to make the leap in logic that allows him to distinguish the two. Why would anyone say, "Not even Hitler stooped so low as to use chemical weapons on his people," [combined with the rest of his explanation] if they didn't think German Jews weren't his people?

And the answer that he was talking about dropping bombs vs. actually going out and rounding up everyone to torture, starve, and gas them to show that not even Hitler would stoop as low as Assad makes absolutely no sense whatsoever. None.

Originally Posted by Adder

Of course the problems are (1) the point that doing that is morally worse than rounding up and systematically exterminating people with chemicals is not valid, and (2) this group's track record does not afford them any benefit of the doubt, up to and including not being able to see #1.

Exactly.

TM

[Adder]

Originally Posted by ThurgreedMarshall

Why would anyone say, "Not even Hitler stooped so low as to use chemical weapons on his people," [combined with the rest of his explanation] if they didn't think German Jews weren't his people?

The best "defense" I saw of Spicer's comments was that technically, the German Jews were not citizens because they had been stripped of citizenship by the Nuremberg Laws, so Spicer was right that they were not Hitler's "people."

Uh, yeah.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Adder

Okay, but it's still expanding one of the biggest (the biggest?) non-defense portions of the government. Which sounds like it will be difficult to get into a bathtub.

You do have me on that. Grover would part ways with me there.

ETA: I'm playing the cards we have. Grover thinks he can bring in a new deck. He's delusional in that regard. But aside from SS, Medicare, Medicaid, and govt supported R&D, I'd gut as much as possible. The biggest cuts would be to Defense.