-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
PoliGAF 2013 |OT2| Worth 77% of OT1
- Thread starter The Librarian
- Start date
- Status
Well, you're assuming what would become an independent Kurdistan is culturally homogenous. In Iraqi Kurdistan alone you would have to reach some sort of situation with the Iraqis of Turkish extraction that far exceeds the one offered by the Turkish government to its Kurdish minority. (I can't speak to the demographics of the other historically Kurdish areas today.)
Aside from that, I suppose there might be concerns about a Kurdish state being a "bad neighbor," particularly if an independent Kurdistan was comprised almost exclusively of what is now Iraqi Kurdistan. See: post-Soviet conflicts in Azerbaijan. I don't see pre-crime as something that supersedes the right to self determination, however.
Didn't see it. I've seen this, though:
not that the democrats are doing too hot either, but goddamn. what's left when that 65+ demographic dies off?
T
thepotatoman
Unconfirmed Member
Don't fall for it man.
This is clearly a republican conspiracy to associate the ACA with the republican party now that it's looking like it's going to be a success.
Fenderputty
Banned
With a name like Boehnercare, I don't think I could find it in myself to care that much.
No it isn't, it's just something people like to say.
That's always sounded like a myth to me. I think it's more likely that attitudes which are considered "liberal" when you're 18 might just be the status quo when you're 70, and thus "conservative".
I don't think millennials will ever be remotely as racist or homophobic as the current white senior population is... and the stupid social issues are the only thing that has kept the Republican party alive as support for their actual policies poll very poorly. That's the real threat to the party. No one likes austerity, endless tax cuts for the wealthy, climate change denial and so on. It used to be they could rely on the dumb social issues, but it just doesn't resonate with Americans born after 1980.
It's something that came about in Victorian times, a famous poet who was always against the government changed his position when he became older because he needed to pay the bills.
I think you're exactly right though. The status quo will change around us and our beliefs may not change with them.
NYCmetsfan
Banned
Nobody likes it when you frame it like that but myths about the government being the worst way to solve problems are alive and well in this generation. The GOP and its underlying ideology and ideas about limited government aren't dying.
So Ken Cucinelli saw that "let him die!" video and wondered why no one has made that into actual policy:
http://maddowblog.msnbc.com/_news/2013/08/26/20200650-human-beings-will-adjust
http://maddowblog.msnbc.com/_news/2013/08/26/20200650-human-beings-will-adjust
The idea of "limited government" won't die, but it will change as time passes. It'll start to incorporate the things that government has started to do now. There will always be the ideologues who want to deconstruct the government completely, but those will always be a minority. That said they are rather vocal at the moment.
Link
The Autumn Wind
I will never understand how anyone can just openly not care about other people. It's really quite phenomenal.
Black Mamba
Member
most people become more liberal as they age.
What's being confused here is that most old people are more conservative than the youth even if they become more liberal over time.
Think about people in their 80s. I'd guarantee you that when they were 20, many of them were against interracial marriage. That percentage dropped as they aged and is much less prevalent among those people today.
I think the benefits you get from these type of scenario are so marginal that it's really not worth it, I mean, those types of action aren't exactly helping to build trust and good diplomatic relationship, which is what successful UN action are about.
Historically, it is absolutely not true that spying can't hurt the US interests, the most famous case is the u-2 incident, but there are many other instances. I wouldn't put spying on the UN on that level, but it certainly doesn't help.
Also, I think it's really problematic to justify something because we always did it, we used to "always did" pretty terrible things.
Phyllis Schlafly wants everyone to know that Republicans are seriously pursuing things like eliminating early voting for legitimate reasons that have nothing to do with politics:
http://www.rightwingwatch.org/conte...efense-north-carolina-s-voter-suppression-law
Seriously, though. Isn't there any quality control to handle people like this?
http://www.rightwingwatch.org/conte...efense-north-carolina-s-voter-suppression-law
Seriously, though. Isn't there any quality control to handle people like this?
T
thepotatoman
Unconfirmed Member
I completely agree. Resolving the social issues alone would cause a lot of young people to shift right thanks to fiscal issues, and even more would fiscally turn right as they become more independent.
America is set for same sex marriage and marijuana legalization and never turning back, but is the current generation really going to protect us from an ever growing power gap between the rich and poor, or the employer and employee?
NYCmetsfan
Banned
Yes if they fail they aren't good. But we also discovered missiles in Cuba because of spying program. It some times helps. You want to find the bad while not even imagining positives. I don't think its marginal but if your going to keep insisting that based on nothing but your desire to magically promote trust by not doing something (how could we prove this? BTW people will always suspect spying because its what states do) then its a really silly argument because no progress will be made. You've made up your mind.
I dunno. I like to remain positive about liberal views getting more popular as time went on, but who would have guessed that the country would be even more skeptical of evolution now than it did 30 years ago?
NYCmetsfan
Banned
I my opinion no. There is no desire to push for a new labor movement, no desire to really fix racial disparities besides superficial things (AA is extremely unpopular among millennial), no movement towards joining the government and to top it off they favor privatization of SS and Medicare.
Instead we seem to have this strong believe that the gates/Clinton/facebook foundations and non-profits will fix the world. There is no desire to come together to solve things instead there is this belief that if everybody does their own thing and things will fix themselves
NYCmetsfan
Banned
I don't think the country changed as much as people think. Political change isn't always driven by cultural changes or ideological changes. But by those that effectively can marshal support at the right times. I don't think the country really got conservative with Reagan just that the conservative movement capitalized and marginalized opposing forces. I'm highly skeptical of people who claim the country moves in political directions as if they are really fickle and schizophrenic bunch.
Fuck this man.
Rhomega Beta
Member
Nah, Tea Partiers hate Bush because he put us trillions into debt, created the Patriot Act, and the No Child Left Behind Act, among other things. He's just a "progressive", just like every other president in the past 100 years that wasn't Reagan or Coolidge.
Mackenzie 92
Member
Anyone know what's up with this?
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jerom...n-act-classified_b_3806304.html?utm_hp_ref=tw
More at the link.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jerom...n-act-classified_b_3806304.html?utm_hp_ref=tw
More at the link.
NYCmetsfan
Banned
You miss the giant word Comedy at the top?
Mackenzie 92
Member
Yeah just saw that a minute after I posted it lol.. oh well. Some crazy posted it on my twitter TL.
Black Mamba
Member
JesseEwiak
Member
I don't know if you're being sarcastic or not, but actually, they did a study, and the thing that lined up most with being a Tea Party supporter, more than race, religion, or anything else, was support for George W. Bush in 2004.
Again, I'm not saying that you should never spy (although I would use a different example then the Cuban middle crisis) I was just trying to point out that spying can have negative impact on a country's interests and as such, the risks need to be weighed against the potential benefits.
I'm only saying that I don't think that spying on the UN is worth it.
The GOP isn't going to change until after the crippling loss they have coming up in 2016. Thanks to gerrymandering, they won't take a hit in 2014, but the national election is going to be an even more brutal beating than last time, Hillary or not. The Tea Party will end up shrinking and becoming more radicalized, and some up and coming Republican will see his chance to gain fame by jumping into the more moderate position. If not, they can kiss the White House good-bye until 2024.
Black Mamba
Member
New Fed article on part-time workers. ACA not to blame, duh.
http://www.frbsf.org/economic-resea...part-time-work-employment-increase-recession/
http://www.frbsf.org/economic-resea...part-time-work-employment-increase-recession/
TacticalFox88
Banned
Depending on HOW bad the GOP gets spanked in 2016, AND if Dems can get Hispanics as Loyal to the party as Blacks have been historically, I guarantee that the GOP will fade into irrelevancy and the Democrats will split to form the new parties.
Aaron Strife
Banned
I don't think the country moves so much in partisan directions, but there is a certain ideological movement. Reagan's rhetoric was all about less government, even if he didn't really enforce it. And that was a playbook even Democrats had to follow until Obama was elected.
It does make for a pretty wtf headline, I laughed.
Hmm, interesting. Thanks for the link.
I gotta admit that I've personally kind of bounced back and forth from one election to the next, so my own N=1 data point doesn't clarify much
(Also, this is my first PoliGAF conversation, but I wanted to say that I've enjoyed lurking these threads, and they've been very educational about a lot of economic issues. I'll try not to say anything stupid and get banned)
Welcome aboard, don't worry it's almost impossible to get banned. All you have to do is not be a dick, or a troll. Actually considering PD is still around the second may not be true.
(Just messing with ya PD)
And why should we listen to Print Bernanke, HMM?!
So...Laura Ingraham played gunshot sound effects while playing a portion of Rep. John Lewis' (a civil rights leader) speech:
http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2013/08/...ds-during-john-lewis-washington-march-speech/
http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2013/08/...ds-during-john-lewis-washington-march-speech/
wsoxfan1214
Banned
Some people are stupid. Also some are greedy. Most are both.
I actually think exactly the same thing. In fact, I don't think ideology matters in the slightest. I think the voting public always votes what they perceive as being in their best interest and gut feeling. Here is a great example of what I mean:
...whites. How long do you think this matters when America becomes a majority-minority nation? I don't believe the majority of people blatantly vote against their own interests because of ideology. For instance, I don't think the decades long dominance of Republicans had anything to do with a deep-rooted, ideological shift that caused the Americans to reject unions and public institutions forever -- I think it had more to do with LBJ passing the civil rights act and the right capitalizing on the racial resentment that was still very much alive.
(i guess i should say I don't believe the GOP will disappear per say, but I do think they're going to lose Hispanics and African-Americans(and thus most elections) for at least 30 years in the same way democrats lost whites(and still can't get a majority of them most elections). I don't think any minority will be forgiving enough for the GOP to be able to vote on them just because of name-association. )
...wat
Rhomega Beta
Member
Really? Well he's part of the reason my dad, and others like Glenn Beck, became Libertarians. The Republian party is too "liberal" for them.
PhoenixDark
Banned
Assuming we start bombing late this week or next week, it could lead to a lot of things escalating. Does anyone think the republican party will shut the government down during a wartime operation? Of course not. I'm not advocating intervention, just pointing out it could ensure the government isn't shut down.
Yes.
Either way they are going to try like hell to defund PPACA.
Jeff Flake's dismissive attitude about the approach is refreshing, but it is the House GOP that we need to watch.
PhoenixDark
Banned
http://www.latimes.com/world/middleeast/la-fg-punitive-strikes-20130827,0,5176333.story
US "credibility" would be damaged more by a dumb strike that incites more violence than by not attacking. I wonder what Hagel's position on this is; he strikes me as someone who'd be against this nonsense.
Cross posting my thoughts from the OT thread, thought it'd be appropriate here:
It'd be a mistake. A ridiculous mistake.
There isn't a "good" militia that we can back, almost all of them have connections to the muslim brotherhood in one way or another and just differ in ideology. There is no secular rebel movement anywhere in Syria, I get that a lot of it legitimately is people trying to get Assad out, but at the end of the day if I were calling the shots I wouldn't back anyone, and the only remote snowballs chance of backing anyone would be if there was a moderately strong militia out there who wanted elections and a secular government and had no ties to the Brotherhood.
The best thing we can do is stay out as much as possible. That shit is a tire fire that we can't put out, both sides are rotten to the core. Letting Al-Nusra take over for Assad would be a downgrade, and it's pretty hard to downgrade from Assad. The puppetmasters being the militias supporting them are the Sunni's being backed by Salafists out of Saudi, including the Saudi Government, and the Shia are being backed by Iran overtly and fully. And Russia is watching closely, ready to react to any American backing of a secular group so they can try and thwart our efforts in the region, as they have no problem playing nice to dictators or religious nutcases.
The chemical weapons part doesn't completely add up to me though. Assad isn't dumb, he knows he can't cross that line or the UN may intervene and end any chances he had of keeping his chair. I don't think he did it, I honestly don't. There's a lot of evidence out there that a chemical attack may have been performed by the rebels themselves(one group to another) or even by outside influences, if you look at the forged email found in the Britam Defense leaks. The militias have a vested interest in getting Western support against Assad, and many chemical weapons were most likely stolen from Assads bases which were overran.
One thing we can guarantee is that there are chemical weapons loose somewhere, most likely in the hands of AQ sympathetic groups and LET. Our #1 priority needs to be finding and taking these weapons. But because they are loose, that gives the capability to the rebels to have gassed some of their own people in order to draw the west into the fight.
There is also the possibility that the chemical attacks could have been stockpiles belonging to the rebels and stolen from the bases they overran, upon being hit by mortars or artillery from Assads forces.
Some shit is going down though, it is not as black and white as "Assad is gassing his people and the West needs to intervene." Some folks somewhere are deliberately hellbent on getting the West into this fight. The real question is who, and there are a lot of possibilities there.
So, our best bet, were you to give my personal opinion would to be to continue to use the CIA's SAD division or Delta operatives (anyone who thinks they aren't in Syria at the moment is delusional) in a covert way, doing what we *want* covertly, while conversely saving on the PR front.
It'd be a mistake. A ridiculous mistake.
There isn't a "good" militia that we can back, almost all of them have connections to the muslim brotherhood in one way or another and just differ in ideology. There is no secular rebel movement anywhere in Syria, I get that a lot of it legitimately is people trying to get Assad out, but at the end of the day if I were calling the shots I wouldn't back anyone, and the only remote snowballs chance of backing anyone would be if there was a moderately strong militia out there who wanted elections and a secular government and had no ties to the Brotherhood.
The best thing we can do is stay out as much as possible. That shit is a tire fire that we can't put out, both sides are rotten to the core. Letting Al-Nusra take over for Assad would be a downgrade, and it's pretty hard to downgrade from Assad. The puppetmasters being the militias supporting them are the Sunni's being backed by Salafists out of Saudi, including the Saudi Government, and the Shia are being backed by Iran overtly and fully. And Russia is watching closely, ready to react to any American backing of a secular group so they can try and thwart our efforts in the region, as they have no problem playing nice to dictators or religious nutcases.
The chemical weapons part doesn't completely add up to me though. Assad isn't dumb, he knows he can't cross that line or the UN may intervene and end any chances he had of keeping his chair. I don't think he did it, I honestly don't. There's a lot of evidence out there that a chemical attack may have been performed by the rebels themselves(one group to another) or even by outside influences, if you look at the forged email found in the Britam Defense leaks. The militias have a vested interest in getting Western support against Assad, and many chemical weapons were most likely stolen from Assads bases which were overran.
One thing we can guarantee is that there are chemical weapons loose somewhere, most likely in the hands of AQ sympathetic groups and LET. Our #1 priority needs to be finding and taking these weapons. But because they are loose, that gives the capability to the rebels to have gassed some of their own people in order to draw the west into the fight.
There is also the possibility that the chemical attacks could have been stockpiles belonging to the rebels and stolen from the bases they overran, upon being hit by mortars or artillery from Assads forces.
Some shit is going down though, it is not as black and white as "Assad is gassing his people and the West needs to intervene." Some folks somewhere are deliberately hellbent on getting the West into this fight. The real question is who, and there are a lot of possibilities there.
So, our best bet, were you to give my personal opinion would to be to continue to use the CIA's SAD division or Delta operatives (anyone who thinks they aren't in Syria at the moment is delusional) in a covert way, doing what we *want* covertly, while conversely saving on the PR front.
If the GOP really does shut down the government over an attempt to defund Obamacare I hope the plans blows up in their faces so hard that you'll be finding bits of Boehner's orange, teary-eyed face all the way in Russia.
On another note, I was reading my university's newspaper this morning, only to see an opinion piece about homosexuality being a choice and not genetic...
If I had the time, I would right a response to it and destroy that man.
On another note, I was reading my university's newspaper this morning, only to see an opinion piece about homosexuality being a choice and not genetic...
If I had the time, I would right a response to it and destroy that man.
The Librarian
Banned
Aha! SEE! GOOD NEWS ABOUT NORTH CAROLINA
Owned. You're all jealous!
Medicare made waves earlier this year by releasing the prices that hospitals charge for the most common procedures.
North Carolina now wants to take a step further: Gov. Pat McCrory (R) signed legislation last week that will require hospitals to publish the prices that they negotiate with insurers.
This data has the potential to be significantly more useful for consumers. The prices that hospitals charge are, essentially, sticker prices. Insurance plans usually negotiate a rate lower than that opening bid. The data that North Carolina will make public is the actual amount that hospitals end up charging health plans for their services. Beginning in June 2014, the states Health and Human Services Web site will post that information.
That means that, in North Carolina, someone undergoing surgery could comparison shop between hospitals before making an appointment, seeing where he or she might get the best deal.
This data could become especially important given the trends were seeing in the health insurance market: Employers are asking employees to take on a bigger share of their premiums, in the form of much larger deductibles. When individuals are paying out-of- pocket for their care, or even a hefty co-insurance fee, the incentive to shop on price becomes a whole lot stronger.
North Carolina now wants to take a step further: Gov. Pat McCrory (R) signed legislation last week that will require hospitals to publish the prices that they negotiate with insurers.
This data has the potential to be significantly more useful for consumers. The prices that hospitals charge are, essentially, sticker prices. Insurance plans usually negotiate a rate lower than that opening bid. The data that North Carolina will make public is the actual amount that hospitals end up charging health plans for their services. Beginning in June 2014, the states Health and Human Services Web site will post that information.
That means that, in North Carolina, someone undergoing surgery could comparison shop between hospitals before making an appointment, seeing where he or she might get the best deal.
This data could become especially important given the trends were seeing in the health insurance market: Employers are asking employees to take on a bigger share of their premiums, in the form of much larger deductibles. When individuals are paying out-of- pocket for their care, or even a hefty co-insurance fee, the incentive to shop on price becomes a whole lot stronger.
Owned. You're all jealous!
So, essentially, patients get to choose between paying an arm and a leg vs paying two arms and a finger.
Gotcha ya.
What do you mean by a "small drop of truth?"
Because things like expanded coverage for health care directives and living wills and other end-of-life counseling activities and things to handle inheritance disputes, these were labelled "death panels." because of the association with, well, death and dying. I wouldn't say that label has a small drop of truth in it, though.
Now, asking judges and/or the secretary of health and human services to overrule established medical protocol which was designed and implemented by medical professionals so that a particular child can get an organ transplant, circumventing the rules and standards that are applied to all other individuals in need of organ donations, that's another story.
- Status