A Forum for Grinches and Ho-Ho-Hoes

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Shape Shifter
"Gabba, Gabba, we accept you, we accept you one of us."

Oh. You mean:

• Don't feel bad. Like we say in France -- you lose some and you lose some.

[Shape Shifter]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
Oh. You mean:

• Don't feel bad. Like we say in France -- you lose some and you lose some.

Congratulations. That's your funniest post ever.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Shape Shifter
Congratulations. That's your funniest post ever.

This post is kind of like earlier, when Sidd said he thought I said something smart. both times I thought, somewhere Ty is thinking there are Daubert like problems with the opinion.

[Adder]

Originally posted by bilmore
I think that we do, at some point, back out - but the "civil war" presumed by some is actually a cleanup effort aimed at 4% of the population. I think that, while it will be bloody, it will be possible.

4% is more than enough to create chaos for decades.

[Adder]

Originally posted by bilmore
Do I have to go back and say that I see the same role for christian fundamentalism, or even just strong christianity, to get you to forego the obvious "ooo, he's racist and religionist!" shit?

Underthink much?

I don't think I have ever accused you or either, although I do remember you making those accusations in the not too distant past. Ironically your accusations were in response to the suggestion that

But come on. This is ridiculously simplistic:

After all, the various populations are attracted to the militant Islamicism only because they lack other vision for life improvement - why not show them a more productive way?

Let's look at just a few the highly questionable embedded assumptions:

1. We, a hated external power, have the ability to in any way give people "hope." Note that the people we are trying to "help" have lived their entire lives surrounded by messages supporting our evil and decadence. Note also that these people have been the targets of our military power at various points over the last 2-3 decades. Note further that we are also a strong supporter a counrty that many of these people see as a natural enemy.

2. Such "hope" can be created through military force i.e. the killing of anyone who gets in our way.

3. The lack of a "vision" for improvement is the only source of frustration that leads to fanaticism.

Look. It's easy for us to see ourselves as creating hope through liberation. But its just as easy for others to see us as imposing our will through invasion. It remains to be seen what the net effect will be in the long run, and you are clearly more optimistic than I.

[Adder]

Originally posted by sgtclub
Here's one take on your question:
[list]Can the anti-government forces in Iraq win? Some pundits think so. But do you really think the Shia Arabs and Kurds will allow Saddam's thugs to bully their way back into power?

And therein lies the myth.

[Adder]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
Sen. Corzine, who should know a thing or two about this stuff, on problems with privatization:
[list]Many privatization advocates rest their case on claims that seniors will enjoy better returns. However, such claims are misleading. First, they generally overlook the costs of financing the accounts -- the higher interest costs that future taxpayers will be forced to bear.

I don't know what this means. Can you explaing why future taxpayers will face higher interest costs? Or is he conflating the concept of privatization with the President's plan to privatize through current borrowing?

I can assure you it is pure folly to assume that privatized accounts will always increase in value and will be at a high-water mark at the moment when an individual retires.

They need not be at the high-water mark, and he knows it. We are not talking here about a lump sum on either end. We are talking about people investing systematically over their entire working lives, and then drawing down the funds systematically over their entire retired lives. As such, the ups and downs of the market are minimized. It is very basic personal finance.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Adder
I don't know what this means. Can you explaing why future taxpayers will face higher interest costs? Or is he conflating the concept of privatization with the President's plan to privatize through current borrowing?

You can talk about privatization in the abstract as if we were designing a whole new system, but the fact remains that SS is pay as you go.

They need not be at the high-water mark, and he knows it. We are not talking here about a lump sum on either end. We are talking about people investing systematically over their entire working lives, and then drawing down the funds systematically over their entire retired lives. As such, the ups and downs of the market are minimized. It is very basic personal finance.

Without looking back at the piece, he could be making one or both of two points:

(1) The advocates of "reform" are using the best of all numbers to make their case, but things aren't always that rosy.

(2) Even though the "ups and downs of the market" can be "minimized" to some extent in the way you describe, there are long periods of time when markets do poorly, historically speaking, and some people will have the misfortune to be screwed by that.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Adder
And therein lies the myth.

Do you have evidence, or can you just imagine this is true?

[Hank Chinaski]

http://lastofthefamous.blogspot.com/...overnment.html

See above- France admits US better at disaster relef-\\


Ty before you were posting all those "% of income to charity things"

given that most people seem to agree the US miltary is the best help, question arises whether DOD budget was included in your numbers?

[Gattigap]

From WaPo:

• President Bush said the public's decision to reelect him was a ratification of his approach toward Iraq and that there was no reason to hold any administration officials accountable for mistakes or misjudgments in prewar planning or managing the violent aftermath.
  
  "We had an accountability moment, and that's called the 2004 elections," Bush said in an interview with The Washington Post. "The American people listened to different assessments made about what was taking place in Iraq, and they looked at the two candidates, and chose me."

Well, I suppose this explains the medals.


GOPers? You guys agree with this particular worldview?

[ltl/fb]

Originally posted by Gattigap
From WaPo:

• President Bush said the public's decision to reelect him was a ratification of his approach toward Iraq and that there was no reason to hold any administration officials accountable for mistakes or misjudgments in prewar planning or managing the violent aftermath.
  
  "We had an accountability moment, and that's called the 2004 elections," Bush said in an interview with The Washington Post. "The American people listened to different assessments made about what was taking place in Iraq, and they looked at the two candidates, and chose me."

Well, I suppose this explains the medals.


GOPers? You guys agree with this particular worldview?

But . . . not everyone voted for him. And it's not like the people who did checked a box that said "I'm voting for him because I approve of what has happened in Iraq."

sigh. now I'm depressed again.

[Gattigap]

Originally posted by ltl/fb
sigh. now I'm depressed again.

Don't be depressed, Fringey. Look! It's a Circus!

(From JibJab, via the Sunday Opinion section of the LA Times).

[Adder]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
Do you have evidence, or can you just imagine this is true?

Do I have any evidence that the insurgents in Iraq are more than just "Baathist thugs?"

Yes.

[ltl/fb]

Originally posted by Gattigap
Don't be depressed, Fringey. Look! It's a Circus!

(From JibJab, via the Sunday Opinion section of the LA Times).

That just makes me more depressed.