ViperMan

Well. Go ahead...we can read the AIBs, which are not safety privileged. Which ones?

If it doesn't require SECDEF energy, then it doesn't require my energy / attention. Fair enough? Get rid of all the DEI nonsense. I never want to here another peep about it. I'd rather have a competent CSSs and finance shops than read another email from the CSAF or SECDEF about some eye-roll BS.

I sense an important point here. What is it?

At bare minimum it'd be easy to say to the pharmaceutical companies they cannot charge the US more than the lowest price they sell their drug for in any other country. Not a price control. Just a balancing of the scales and an evening out of the "markets." Wanna sell your drug for .15/pill in Zimbabwe? Cool with us. That's our price too. The differential price structure is what's fucked. It allows triangulation of the American taxpayer via the mechanism of Medicare, Medicade, and all our other socialized healthcare. I get to work everyday and pay a lot of taxes at the threat of gunpoint for the privilege of lining these massive drug companies' pockets so they can deliver "healthcare." If anyone thought this was a free market, they were consuming mushrooms.

Bruh. Don't miss the point. The point of these tariffs isn't ultimately to bring our friends and allies to the bargaining table to ensure Americans get fair deals, m'kay. They are being imposed solely for the purpose of increasing the cost of living in America...because. At least that's what Hakeem Jeffries would have me believe if I thought he had a single brain cell in his noggin.

This is precisely the point. Ask any modern liberal (leftist), mutatis mutandis, and they will not be able to answer this question - i.e. they cannot provide a general or abstract answer. Nay, they will not even engage with the argument on that level. It is literal proof of an uninformed argument and an unconsidered position. All you will get is some variation of he's stupid and/or colored orange.

I don't know what they did or didn't send over Signal, so couch this in terms of hypotheticals. *IF* actual plans were sent over signal, that's every bit as bad as Hilary's email server. It's sloppy as F and warrants resignations, and criminal charges. If we're gonna hang out to dry airmen who flex on whatever video game crew they play with by sending secret info, we sure as hell are gonna do the same if the SECDEF is being a sloppy MF. That said, it's very likely this is more of the same blue-haired hyperventilating ala "January 6th was a coup d'etat."

To be more clear: we need to throttle peoples' disposable income - especially people on the dole. Yes, that means welfare, Social Security, Medicare, Medicade, student loan forgiveness. It will mean people losing homes, being displaced from communities they can't afford to live in, schools they can't afford to attend, getting fired from their make-work jobs, etc. The core problem that needs to be addressed is people spending money they didn't earn. Unless we remove other peoples' money from the people's pockets who didn't earn it, we won't solve a single thing. Doesn't matter what you make the tax rate. At this point, the only way forward to to redesign the incentive structure in an attempt to systematically begin to dismantle all the bad decisions that have collectively led us to this point.

This guy gets it. Yep. The other dimension here is that increased demand for housing - through artificially increasing the population - places downward pressure on wages. This effect is across ALL jobs. ALL careers. Not just menial, day-labor type employment. So not only does the cost of available housing increase, the amount of work required to net yourself housing goes up also, driving a further divide. For everyone. We (still) haven't fully flushed out the recession from 2008, and all these present effects are still downstream from that and now all the COVID spending too. Banks withheld housing after the crash, lest they really get caught holding the bag. Post 2008, banks stopped foreclosing on certain delinquent mortgages. In 2019, some people saw this coming: https://www.marketwatch.com/story/why-bubble-era-home-mortgages-are-a-disaster-waiting-to-happen-2019-02-25 https://www.marketwatch.com/story/this-bubble-era-mortgage-trick-could-smash-major-us-housing-markets-2019-03-18 In 2024 some of these mortgages are now coming back to bite: https://www.cbsnews.com/news/zombie-mortgages-debt-haunt-homeowners/ All that cash which should have been collected from people who "spent" that money on housing found its way into other parts of the economy, instead. Personally, I don't have any questions on why the price of stuff is so high. We injected fake dollars into the system during the run-up to 2008, and we did it again during COVID. When you mainline billions upon trillions of dollars into the economy without concurrent economic productivity to absorb those dollars, you get what we have now. It's simple arithmetic. It sucks that there will be pain, but we're not choosing this course presently. We made this choice a long, long time ago, and much like global warming, much of it is baked in at this point. We kicked the can in '08. We kicked it again in '20. We're eventually going to have to pay the piper, and the sooner, the better. @Negatory, I think you're mistaking a desire for austerity, with folks' acceptance that the cure is going to be painful.

I also want to pile on with a reminder that the very year groups they force-shaped during that phase in 2011 or whenever it exactly was, they then began to offer TERA to the people who would have been otherwise eligible for retirement (albeit a reduced one). That's like being at 18 or 19 years of service and getting let go because they don't want to pay you your retirement / pension. Thanks for your service. See ya later. https://www.stripes.com/news/2013-07-26/air-force-offers-early-retirement-option-in-certain-career-fields-1836037.html1 https://www.afpc.af.mil/News/Article-Display/Article/856683/officers-enlisted-members-offered-early-retirement/

This, most assuredly, is not what people are complaining about in that thread. That whole discussion is about self-imposed flagellation in one way or another. This is totally different. It's a one-off requirement to finally deal with some of the massive, obvious bloat that has become endemic in our government - which has really become a massive jobs program. It's not so much that the ends justify the means. It's more the structure of our government bloat, and the way things don't function properly necessitating the means. I know we don't agree. This is just different perspective. It boils down to a fundamental disagreement we have about finances. You think we can just grow our way out of this. I understand that our position in the world is made ever more fragile as we dilute the reserve currency of the world. It's not pretty, but we've gotten ourselves into a mess where we have no choice but to face down some pretty tough times. It's sad. I wish it wasn't the case. But it's where we are. One way or another, dramatic cuts were coming. I'd prefer that data be masked... Edit to add: Also, dude, with that ratio of dicks to gallons of piss, there had to be some real horse-penises in there.

The shallow point from that previous post was in reference to gearhog’s superficial acknowledgment that Russia was at fault. I know he doesn’t actually assign blame to Russia, just as he wouldn’t assign blame to anything else that was inevitable. His use of the term “inevitable” and retort to US “provocation” does all the lifting required to absolve Russia of blame and place it on the US/Ukraine. "It was our fault for approaching Russia. They warned us. The war is our fault." It’s a similar argument to yours, which is because something is predictable, or because someone told you they were going to do something, they are no longer accountable for their actions. That's a strange moral calculus...but I digress. Your analysis is shallow because it doesn’t incorporate certain facts about the world. Namely, the three separate treaties (at least) Russia is violating by invading Ukraine. People on this board have made counter arguments or arguments that subsume facts you present which strengthen your argument (i.e. secret Russian warnings about NATO expansion eastward). In other words, they are arguing in good faith. You haven’t done the same. *See your own post from a couple pages back where you said you’d look at those treaties. Either you did and you decided to continue to ignore those facts, or you didn’t because you’re so ideologically bound to your argument that you don’t think it’s worth your time. Either way, it makes your argument shallow since you’re picking and choosing certain facts while sticking your head in the sand regarding others. Basically, your whole argument is weaponized ignorance. Your second tactic is a variation on the same theme. Avoidance. *See where you just tried to change the subject to Taiwan, again. I bet another dollar you (still) won’t acknowledge or talk about the violation of those treaties in any meaningful way. So far I’m 1 for 1. Going forward, I predict you’ll continue using one of those two strategies. Maybe after a post or two, but you’ll return to changing the subject to Taiwan or beating the drum about secret memos that predicted this would happen.

Do birds fly? Do airplanes fly? Do fish swim? Do submarines swim? Do boats swim? Would you blame a shark for biting you? How about an apple for falling on your head? In short, the question is ill-formed. Dog's don't have responsibility. Or am I to believe you'd charge a dog with the crime of biting and afford him a trial by a jury of his peers? Yeah, you put the dog down, but you don't blame the dog. You blame yourself for allowing a situation to develop wherein something inevitable was going to happen. The metaphor breaks down because the words and concepts don't transfer. Yes, the dog bit someone. The dog did it. But the dog is not responsible in the same sense as you or I are for its actions. Look up the definition of responsibility. It doesn't mean only that somebody (or some thing) took an action. Responsibility is a concept that applies to entities which posses knowledge of right and wrong and then make a choice. It can't be applied to instinct-driven creatures ruled only by fear and hunger. FFS, let's at least agree on that. Anyway, let's not get wrapped up about the metaphor. It's a distraction from the core point @gearhog tried to make, which was that Russia's attack was both inevitable and blameworthy. Exqueeze me? Baking powder? That's like blaming an apple for falling off a tree. The concepts of blame and inevitability don't go together. They can't co-exist. He stripped them of their agency while simultaneously faulting them for their actions. You can't do both of those things. He absolves them of their responsibility and agency by placing the blame on the US because we "provoked" them and then calls their resultant actions inevitable. It's blame transfer. Yeah, the dog metaphor is imperfect, but the underlying point was contradictory without reliance on the metaphor. It's these sorts of paradoxes in other peoples' positions which illustrate how shallow their analysis is.

The implicit contradiction in this post is delicious. The part where you simultaneously assign blame to Russia, and then only a few words later remove all agency from them by likening them to a dog is my favorite. I wrote two extremely thoughtful responses to you ages ago that included them all. There a link to one a couple posts back. That one contains a link the the previous. Say it. Say Russia is wrong.

You address Russia's signatures on all the documents placing no membership restrictions on NATO countries first. And as part of your response, outline why they were allowed to lie on those documents and break those agreements when they invaded Ukraine. Finally, indicate why whatever reasoning you provide for the preceding is sufficient justification for their invasion. I bet a dollar that in whatever reply you muster that you won't.

Fair enough. We probably are. This is the internet. One test though: Try to get Bashi to write any one of the three example sentences above assigning culpability to Russia. I predict he won't do it.

Well, yeah. And no. Plenty, two at current count, of people here will not type sentences like "Russia is the aggressor," "Russia is wrong," "Russia should give back the parts of Ukraine they stole," etc. And that is precisely the structure of Bashi's argument. He absolutely thinks Russia is justified. Gearhog, in his old age, best I can tell, has just discovered his inner pacifist. That's less concerning from a moral standpoint.

I'll be your huckleberry (again). The arguments on this board basically break down along two lines. Side one (my side) is that people like Steven Kotkin conclusively point to all the treaties and legal agreements between NATO countries, Russia, et al. These treaties go through things like "no restrictions on member states," "all nations have sovereign rights to join any alliance they choose," and so on and so forth. If you read what I've written before, or have a look at those interviews again, you'll be up to snuff as to what those legal agreements cover and what nations' rights and responsibilities are under them. Interestingly, Russia has signed all those documents - which is a fact in the world you have never addressed in all these long pages...but I digress. It's clear that doing that would not be conducive to your argument, so I don't expect a substantive or direct response to that bit of reality. Moving on. Argument two (yours) breaks down along the lines of "there were secret meetings between Russia and the US and 'guarantees' were made that certain things wouldn't happen. Like Ukraine joining NATO. Like NATO moving eastward, etc. Your argument is basically this: Party R telegraphed to us that they would beat up party U if X, Y, or Z thing happened. X, Y, or Z thing happened, therefore, party R goes and beats up party U. Hence it's justified because we knew about it ahead of time. Your argument is literally that someone told us they were going to do an immoral thing, then they did it, now it's justified? Like my favorite tennis player famously lamented: you cannot be serious. Now, if X, Y, or Z constituted legitimate bases to conduct a beating, then sure. You could argue that party R is in the right. Problem is, there's nothing there. If you want your argument to hold water, you need to provide a moral justification as to why NATO moving eastward, or Ukraine joining NATO, provides Russia a moral basis to conduct an invasion of a sovereign nation. I won't hold my breath. Anyway, to wrap this up. No one here is denying the 2008 memo or Bill Burns or whatever. It's just that being forewarned about an immoral thing doesn't invalidate that thing's immorality. i.e. your argument doesn't provide a moral basis for the invasion. You think predicting something or declaring something outright makes it moral. That's what and why you're wrong. You telling your wife to expect a beating when she gets home doesn't justify it. Your argument structure suggests you think it would. See, we're not arguing about facts. We're arguing about the moral basis for conducting this conflict. Your facts are there, they're just immaterial and irrelevant to the underlying question as to who is at fault, who has moral culpability, and who is in the wrong. In essence, you're Michael Scott declaring bankruptcy.

Yeah. Gosh. A Civil war example. Digging deep. And whoa, a WW2 example wherein 0.7% of the serving soldiers were able to vote. That's 7/10 ths of 1 percent. That's a small number because you seem confused. Nice examples. You added logs to my fire, not yours. Appreciate it. That's clearly not what he was saying. And you're obviously being intentionally obtuse and provocative. Anyway, I'm done with this part of the argument.

I'm not expressing an opinion that elections shouldn't ever be held. I'm expressing incredulity at the prospect of conducting a proper election under true, wartime conditions. How do you suggest the 90% of displaced residents in any given bombed-out apartment building get to participate? Where even are they? Could they hope to participate? How would you ensure rampant fraud isn't injected by some sort of, you know, hostile counter-intelligence force? In short, all I'm saying is that the drum-beating about how Ukraine isn't a democracy because they're not holding elections right now is nakedly cynical. And that's coming from someone who is pretty cynical. Especially considering most of the "democratic advocacy" is coming from people who don't bat an eye about the legitimacy of Russian "elections."

Ehhh. You can take it as either. It was a statement meant only to convey the observation that you're obviously not on the pointy end of anything, and that likely informs your opinions about hyperbole / shorthand used to discuss war. I guess you found the statement shocking. It's purpose was to get hippies to out themselves. Moving on.

Backpedal much? You clearly said we should we should shovel weapons into a war so a society could be fed into a wood chipper. That indicates a choice on our part to achieve a desired outcome. Either own it or admit it was a poor choice of words. This is a pro-war position at best, straight up evil at worst. Anytime a choice is made to cease hostilites... that's backing down? Are for or against minimizing bloodshed? Your language is ambiguous, but you most definitely don't care about anyone's bloodshed. Well I can see how a two-sentence statement can be fodder for your backpedal comment, but I'll add a little more context since you're obviously not a fighter pilot. I mean them both. There. I'm owning it. It was, in part, a cavalier response to the devil-may-care attitude some of you show, by regurgitating Russian talking points while representing yourselves as US military officers. Yes, we should funnel weapons into this war so the people who are defending themselves can continue to do so. No, it doesn't matter iF tHEy're nOt a dEMoCraCY. Putin along with his criminal army should be the ones who bear the brunt of the cost. That cost should be maintained at a high enough level to continue taking a toll until he cries uncle - which he eventually will - that much should be obvious to anyone who has paid attention to just how well his military has fared in this conflict. Maximizing Russian bloodshed to enable that end, should be our explicit goal, as that is the only way this war will justly end. I'll let me be the judge of what I do and don't care about, but to get to the crux of your provocation, yes, I have accepted that war is two things - wrong in an absolute sense, and two, part of human nature. I'm sorry that human kind has decided that some shit is worth killing people over - but that's not a decision I get to make. It's part of the reality I inhabit. And I know you're using "pro-war" as an insult, but if you are in the military, and you can't have seen being pro war at some point or another, than I don't even know what to think about that. Maximizing the bloodshed of those who are in the wrong, and who simultaneously have the full capacity and responsibility for ending the war is the fastest, and most moral way to resolve it. The only reason Putin won't, is because he wants to save face, and now sees an opportunity. And on that topic - our lack of unanimity and moral clarity on that point helps enable Putin. That is why attitudes like yours are met with such derision. The part of this whole thing I find most incredulous is that you think that by terminating support for Ukraine, bloodshed is going to end for those people. That's inexcusably naive. The only thing you're going to get is a reprieve from seeing it on the news. In fact, the cost of the war will still be fully borne out. That's the unfortunate part. You'll get to turn the lights out, click your brain off, take an internet victory lap, and pretend everything's hunky dory.