bhodilee wrote:So we undo Obama I and make way for Mit I? I dunno, I've got a strong Devil you Know vibe this time around.

Mit is just...um...gosh I don't even know. The best thing I can say is, for a politician he's not a total sleaze. He's just kind of know it all douchey. Like me, but with better hair.

Wouldn't it be lovely if there was a candidate somewhere, ANYWHERE, that inspired some confidence. Even if that confidence was "I don't think he'll make it any worse?"

Think of this as a sticky social choice theory problem:

Generally society's preferences (as they sit now) seem to be:

O is not preferred to R [alternatively R is preferred weakly to O]
O is weakly preferred to P

But.

O is strongly preferred to G
O is strongly preferred to S

That would indicate if one has a strong preference of "Not O" (as I do) you want the choice to be O v R.

Yet, to get to the selection between O and ?, you have to get through G v S v P v R

Ignoring P we have among republican primary voters:

Strong Preference for "Not O"
Preference for "Not R" (aggregate of all others)
Probable Preference G over S
? G v R

If G v O = O, and S v O = O, then the preferences for "Not O" should trump "Not R", but will they?

rpm wrote:Think of this as a sticky social choice theory problem:

Generally society's preferences (as they sit now) seem to be:

O is not preferred to R [alternatively R is preferred weakly to O]
O is weakly preferred to P

But.

O is strongly preferred to G
O is strongly preferred to S

That would indicate if one has a strong preference of "Not O" (as I do) you want the choice to be O v R.

Yet, to get to the selection between O and ?, you have to get through G v S v P v R

Ignoring P we have among republican primary voters:

Strong Preference for "Not O"
Preference for "Not R" (aggregate of all others)
Probable Preference G over S
? G v R

If G v O = O, and S v O = O, then the preferences for "Not O" should trump "Not R", but will they?

They will not. I don't think R has a shot with independents making the whole exercise moot.

bhodilee wrote:They will not. I don't think R has a shot with independents making the whole exercise moot.

Especially with Perry dropping and throwing behind Newt...

joelsisk wrote:Especially with Perry dropping and throwing behind Newt...

Really? He's throwing in with Newt? Must be the Mormon thing (which is the other thing, Christian's ain't voting for a Mormon when it comes down to it, they may hate Obama, but he isn't Mormon)

cheron98 wrote:Those are scary words. They bring thoughts of "Anti-Christ" to mind.

New food for thought: Why is it that when someone doesn't like an old white dude, it's normal and they're entitled to their opinion of them, but when someone doesn't like a man of color, even if it's for the same reasons as the old white dude, suddenly they're "harboring internalized racism" and it's suddenly all about the color of the skin?

In case it wasn't clear, I didn't mean that stuff. I was being ridiculous on purpose. I don't want you all thinking I'm a nut job, at least no more than you already did.

For me at least, everyone is entitled to his or her opinion. There are plenty of legitimate reasons to dislike Obama, which have nothing to do with race. On the other hand, there are people who dislike him because of race or whose dislike is intensified because of race. I might be inclined to think that race is a factor if the person can't articulate reasons for disliking him, or gives crazy nonsense reasons, and I already know that person has issues with race. That wouldn't apply to anyone here.

I for one find it hilarious that so many people don't want one of them durned polygamist Mormons as President, while the one they talk up instead (Newt) is the one who has had multiple wives.

Re Romney, he doesn't seem to be doing well at convincing anyone to like him. He's just trying to be everyone's second choice, so they go along with him when their first choice candidates all drop out after convincing too many people to actively dislike them. It seems to be working so far, but being second best isn't a recipe for success when we get to the general election and there are only two choices available.

rpm wrote:Because if it weren't, the entire 'race industry' would no longer have any reason to exist and no one would pay any money or attention to them. Just think of the rice bowls that would be broken if people acknowledged that we're a mostly color-blind society today and that the best way to move further in that direction is to avoid racializing most things and marginalize those of any color who try to centralize race.

Unfortunately, most of those who would be harmed are the "professional" minority spokesmen and their white fellow-travelers.

So I was told that much of the rhetoric currently in use by the GOP is directly descended from the language used to marginalize black folks since the end of slavery (and probably before). The fellow I was discussing this with learned it during his master's degree in a relevant field - wish I could remember whether it was history or political science or whatnot. I could track him down via my GF and find out more. I had meant to at the time, too. Just that these hypotheses are out there and relatively accepted by some is, to me, cause for concern. Perhaps some food for thought, and maybe I can get some references sent along.

Personally, I agree with rpm, though. I figure if people stop making racism an issue it should stop being an issue.

coynedj wrote:I for one find it hilarious that so many people don't want one of them durned polygamist Mormons as President, while the one they talk up instead (Newt) is the one who has had multiple wives.

I, for one, find it sad that a candidate's religion is at all a factor. But this is the (supposedly secular) United States. If people would stop worrying about the Mormon Garments maybe an actual discussion of the issues would emerge. Not going to hold me breath...

klezman wrote:I, for one, find it sad that a candidate's religion is at all a factor. But this is the (supposedly secular) United States. If people would stop worrying about the Mormon Garments maybe an actual discussion of the issues would emerge. Not going to hold me breath...

In the Romney speech that I listened to, he mentioned "secular nation" as a negative.

http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2012/01/in-appeal-to-evangelical-crowd-romney-voices-support-of-ministerial-exemption/

It'll stop being an issue when it stops being a reality. I know that there is a race industry (we can all think of people who make their living complaining of racism even when it's nowhere to be seen), and there are many, many people who have moved beyond it. But just talk to some people in rural America and you'll discover that deep-seated racism still exists.

I now live in a fly-over state - heck, it's a fly-over state to people living in other fly-over states. I heard one guy talking about not wanting to send his kids to school with the "monkeys". Maybe in the major urban centers this kind of thinking is rare, but there are parts of the country where it still exists. Given South Carolina's long history on this matter, I would expect it to be a place where the old "code words" still get a welcome reception in some crowds.

coynedj wrote:It'll stop being an issue when it stops being a reality. I know that there is a race industry (we can all think of people who make their living complaining of racism even when it's nowhere to be seen), and there are many, many people who have moved beyond it. But just talk to some people in rural America and you'll discover that deep-seated racism still exists.

I now live in a fly-over state - heck, it's a fly-over state to people living in other fly-over states. I heard one guy talking about not wanting to send his kids to school with the "monkeys". Maybe in the major urban centers this kind of thinking is rare, but there are parts of the country where it still exists. Given South Carolina's long history on this matter, I would expect it to be a place where the old "code words" still get a welcome reception in some crowds.

My argument is not that there is no remaining racism; rather, it's that throughout the country generally -- even in rural states -- a tipping point has been reached and most people are not intentionally and consciously racist.

Do racists still exist? Yup, and some of the worst are themselves members of minorities who hate on whitey.

But, at some point, I think we've passed beyond undoing state action to discriminate against blacks (primarily), hispanics and asians to something which is not about removing legal barriers into something which necessarily discriminates against someone else.

At some point -- and for me the point cannot come too soon -- we have to stop affirmative action and reverse discrimination and the race industry, and walk the walk of an essentially (nothing's perfect) color blind society.

Unfortunately, I think that the race industry and affirmative action perpetuate the worst stereotypes about minorities, especially the stereotype that they are not as competent as others.

When I was in college, before affirmative action in admissions, the relatively small number of minorities were generally seen as more competent than the average. Does anyone who has graduated in the last 30 years or so really believe the minority students in his or her class were academically his or her equal if he or she was at or close to the top of the class? Affirmative action did that by causing people to be admitted whose test scores indicated they were less qualified (otherwise they would not have needed affirmative action).

I know for a fact that in my law school class only one of the 20% who were black and Hispanic had test scores and grades which were good enough that they'd have been admitted without affirmative action. One. Who was ex-military. And, it showed in their grades all through law school (none on Law Review or Order of the Coif) and in their first time bar passage rates.

It's not racist to note these things as facts -- even if racists can make hay of them

rpm wrote:My argument is not that there is no remaining racism; rather, it's that throughout the country generally -- even in rural states -- a tipping point has been reached and most people are not intentionally and consciously racist.

Do racists still exist? Yup, and some of the worst are themselves members of minorities who hate on whitey.

But, at some point, I think we've passed beyond undoing state action to discriminate against blacks (primarily), hispanics and asians to something which is not about removing legal barriers into something which necessarily discriminates against someone else.

At some point -- and for me the point cannot come too soon -- we have to stop affirmative action and reverse discrimination and the race industry, and walk the walk of an essentially (nothing's perfect) color blind society.

Unfortunately, I think that the race industry and affirmative action perpetuate the worst stereotypes about minorities, especially the stereotype that they are not as competent as others.

When I was in college, before affirmative action in admissions, the relatively small number of minorities were generally seen as more competent than the average. Does anyone who has graduated in the last 30 years or so really believe the minority students in his or her class were academically his or her equal if he or she was at or close to the top of the class? Affirmative action did that by causing people to be admitted whose test scores indicated they were less qualified (otherwise they would not have needed affirmative action).

I know for a fact that in my law school class only one of the 20% who were black and Hispanic had test scores and grades which were good enough that they'd have been admitted without affirmative action. One. Who was ex-military. And, it showed in their grades all through law school (none on Law Review or Order of the Coif) and in their first time bar passage rates.

It's not racist to note these things as facts -- even if racists can make hay of them

These statistics, while notable, are less meaningful than the statistics of more recent law school graduates.

Anyway, I think there will be augmented class warfare when Romney accepts the nomination (which I see as a foregone conclusion). Perry "endorsing" Gingrich is basically the same thing as my endorsement. Gingrich doesn't have the legs to stand on for a national election. Too many recognize him for his own smelly brand of scum.

I personally do not hold private equity in high regard. The current crop of fortune 500 executives see their companies as bags of money that they and their cronies can loot, all under the rubber stamping approval of their boards. It's not the interest of the companies, shareholders or, for that matter, the rest of America. I rant. I think Romney's bright and good at the tasks he accepts. When he wins the nomination, he will begin taking some credit for his work in MA, which will enable him to gain some moderate democrats, who want a stripped-bare national health insurance and more financial austerity.

rpm wrote:
Does anyone who has graduated in the last 30 years or so really believe the minority students in his or her class were academically his or her equal if he or she was at or close to the top of the class? Affirmative action did that by causing people to be admitted whose test scores indicated they were less qualified (otherwise they would not have needed affirmative action).

I know for a fact that in my law school class only one of the 20% who were black and Hispanic had test scores and grades which were good enough that they'd have been admitted without affirmative action. One. Who was ex-military. And, it showed in their grades all through law school (none on Law Review or Order of the Coif) and in their first time bar passage rates.

My experience was not like that all. I didn't go to ivy league universities where people are scrambling to get in, so maybe affirmative action was not a factor at all. Whatever affirmative action goes on (or not) at my workplace, it's apparently working very well because my "class" is very diverse and we've all been successful. I can discern no correlation between my coworkers' performance and their race. Or sex, for whatever that's worth.

canonizer wrote:These statistics, while notable, are less meaningful than the statistics of more recent law school graduates.

I hear substantially the same thing from recent law school graduates.

canonizer wrote:Anyway, I think there will be augmented class warfare when Romney accepts the nomination (which I see as a foregone conclusion). Perry "endorsing" Gingrich is basically the same thing as my endorsement. Gingrich doesn't have the legs to stand on for a national election. Too many recognize him for his own smelly brand of scum.

you're probably right

canonizer wrote:I personally do not hold private equity in high regard. The current crop of fortune 500 executives see their companies as bags of money that they and their cronies can loot, all under the rubber stamping approval of their boards. It's not the interest of the companies, shareholders or, for that matter, the rest of America. I rant. I think Romney's bright and good at the tasks he accepts. When he wins the nomination, he will begin taking some credit for his work in MA, which will enable him to gain some moderate democrats, who want a stripped-bare national health insurance and more financial austerity.

You definitely rant. And you definitely don't have the slightest idea what you're talking about. Private equity just means investment in companies that are not publicly traded. Which includes most companies, and virtually all start ups and early stage companies. Private equity means a wide range of things and different situations.

The only people who talk about looting companies are those who haven't a clue how capital markets and corporate governance work. A well-run, profitable company that keeps its shareholders happy cannot be looted.

I can lend an anecdote from my high school gifted program. To get in, one had to pass a set of informal tests at some point in their previous education (some did in elementary, some in middle school). Since these were done by committee and entirely subjective, I have to wonder if the fact that there were only 5-7/120 black kids in my class was due to discrimination or different desires or aptitudes. It never occurred to me that they might have greater or lesser apptitude than anybody else. The overall percentage of black kids in the rest of the school was probably closer to 15-20%. The gifted class was mostly white or Chinese, with a good number of us MOT thrown in as well.

BTW, our definition back then of a "gifted" kid was one who had pushy parents. There's a grain of truth in that as well.

rpm wrote:You definitely rant. And you definitely don't have the slightest idea what you're talking about. Private equity just means investment in companies that are not publicly traded. Which includes most companies, and virtually all start ups and early stage companies. Private equity means a wide range of things and different situations.

The only people who talk about looting companies are those who haven't a clue how capital markets and corporate governance work. A well-run, profitable company that keeps its shareholders happy cannot be looted.

Clearly, differences in definitions abound. I would guess that canonizer's definition of "looting" is substantially different from yours, and the same goes for "private equity". There are a lot of companies that are not well-run and that do not keep their shareholders (assuming that the shareholders are not primarily corporate insiders) happy - would you say that they can be looted?

klezman wrote:I can lend an anecdote from my high school gifted program. To get in, one had to pass a set of informal tests at some point in their previous education (some did in elementary, some in middle school). Since these were done by committee and entirely subjective, I have to wonder if the fact that there were only 5-7/120 black kids in my class was due to discrimination or different desires or aptitudes. It never occurred to me that they might have greater or lesser apptitude than anybody else. The overall percentage of black kids in the rest of the school was probably closer to 15-20%. The gifted class was mostly white or Chinese, with a good number of us MOT thrown in as well.

BTW, our definition back then of a "gifted" kid was one who had pushy parents. There's a grain of truth in that as well.

It's a definite truth that some kids are in talented/gifted programs because their parents push to get them in, and they're not stupid. (If the kid's really dumb, no amount of pushing will work)

Others are their because they are obviously very, very bright.

And, in some cases it's because the school (faculty/administrators) want to curry favor with the parents who are socially or economically prominent in the area (again if the kid's really dumb it won't work).

coynedj wrote:Clearly, differences in definitions abound. I would guess that canonizer's definition of "looting" is substantially different from yours, and the same goes for "private equity". There are a lot of companies that are not well-run and that do not keep their shareholders (assuming that the shareholders are not primarily corporate insiders) happy - would you say that they can be looted?

If a company isn't well-run by the managers, and the shareholders (owners) aren't happy, then a company is very ripe for someone who thinks he or she can run it better and/or extract the value.

A takeover (or leverage buyout) works when a buyer thinks the company is so undervalued that the buyer can pay a premium over the current market value sufficient to induce the present shareholders to sell, and still make enough money to provide him or her with a better return on his or her capital than the next best opportunity.

Often using debt (to reduce the capital necessary and spread the risk of failing.

The shareholders are happy because they received a premium to what the market was paying. The prior market value wasn't enough to induce them to sell (whether because they'd paid more or less) under current circumstances, and the takeover premium was sufficient to get them to sell.

Managers aren't particularly happy, but they're the ones who weren't doing a very good job keeping shareholders happy. Sometimes workers are unhappy because they had a better deal than made economic sense. Everybody was fat and happy before, but the company wasn't really healthy.

After a takeover it's harder, because the acquisition debt needs to be paid off (that's the debt you hear about), but the operations need to be streamlined and value unlocked as well.

Sometimes deals work, sometimes they don't because the takeover investors, or the promoters of the deal, made bad guesses about how much they could improve things.

A beef against takeovers generally that's not entirely unfair is that the promoters often make huge profits putting the deal together, but take little risk if the deal fails. But, that's an indictment of the judgment of the bankers who promoted the deal and the people who listened to them, not the process itself, which really is the 'creative destruction' necessary to keep companies efficient and innovative.

I have a degree in finance. I understand how the system is supposed to work, and that most of the time it works as it is supposed to. I also know that reality often diverges from how things are supposed to work, and not always because someone mis-estimates how well they could perform their proper roles.

coynedj wrote:I have a degree in finance. I understand how the system is supposed to work, and that most of the time it works as it is supposed to. I also know that reality often diverges from how things are supposed to work, and not always because someone mis-estimates how well they could perform their proper roles.

Then what's the issue for you? Those whose judgment is wrong lose their money (as do those who invested with them) Bankruptcy has a set of priorities among creditors depending who's secured, who's in line when, and who gets what if they're not enough to go around for everyone (whether in a reorganization or liquidation).

Are we talking about the smaller number of situations that go bad because of bad actors? Rather than regulate the whole process - which simply creates bureaucrats and interferes with market processes, vigorously apply existing laws regarding fraud and fraudulent conveyance to claw back monies from bad actors and to jug them, if appropriate.

From my perspective of 30+ years practice of corporate law, far more takeovers and LBOs are good for shareholder (who can now invest elsewhere) than are not. Overpaid managers, and overpaid workers are most often the losers.

The separation of ownership and control -- managers without large stakes in the enterprise they manage -- means managers feel like they're playing with OPM (other people's money), so they pay themselves accordingly, and they're happy to make concessions to workers they wouldn't make if it were their own money. And workers, too often, treated jobs as sinecures. Not all, or even most probably. But, enough to drag things down a little here and a little there, and pretty soon put these things all together and you're not competitive anymore.

Companies that provide lavish benefits can do so only when they're capturing so much of the consumer surplus there's room for competitors. As they get competitors, the consumer surplus disappears as prices moderate - then either the perks go or the company gets vulnerable.

I'm not sure how I feel about these OctoCat "political-comments-worded-as-questions" microphone drops, but nevertheless...

Racism exists. But that pendulum swings long both ways. And I don't think dislike Obama because he's black -- and anyone who makes that argument is as stupid as they appear; people don't like Obama because he's done quite a few positive things, but FAR more negative things.

I have nothing to add to the finance conversation except that I think businesses should be run by their owners (personal, shareholders, etc.) and not by a bunch of people who don't have any interest (financially) in the company or by the government (except in extreme circumstances).

Thank you Los Angeles. Peace. I'm out.**

**My first mic drop.

rpm wrote:You definitely rant. And you definitely don't have the slightest idea what you're talking about. Private equity just means investment in companies that are not publicly traded. Which includes most companies, and virtually all start ups and early stage companies. Private equity means a wide range of things and different situations.

The only people who talk about looting companies are those who haven't a clue how capital markets and corporate governance work. A well-run, profitable company that keeps its shareholders happy cannot be looted.

Fair nuff.

canonizer wrote:These statistics, while notable, are less meaningful than the statistics of more recent law school graduates.

Not much has changed: http://www2.law.ucla.edu/sander/

kylemittskus wrote:
I have nothing to add to the finance conversation except that I think businesses should be run by their owners (personal, shareholders, etc.) and not by a bunch of people who don't have any interest (financially) in the company or by the government (except in extreme circumstances).

Shareholders do run the companies, the same way that voters run the country -- by representation.

I own stock in IBM (and I might occasionally have something of use to contribute to them). But I also own stock in JPM-Chase, about which I know nothing.

I simply don't have the time or information to learn how to run these companies.

Luckily, the business structure that you're describing exists -- it's called the member-managed LLC. But most corporations, partnerships, and manager-managed LLCs don't want to be squeezed into that box.

PetiteSirah wrote:Not much has changed: http://www2.law.ucla.edu/sander/

It appears that the students are not well-prepared. If we can't fix that, then affirmative action at the law school level isn't going to help - it's too late.

The director of the USPTO is a political appointee, so if Obama is voted out, we'll likely lose David Kappos. He's done so much to improve the PTO from an examiner perspective, and I think also from an Applicant perspective. PS might know better how the IP community feels about him, in general. I do know that the previous director was not loved much by either side. I really want Kappos to stay.

double post

chemvictim wrote:It appears that the students are not well-prepared. If we can't fix that, then affirmative action at the law school level isn't going to help - it's too late.

That's not the problem, it's horsepower -- most of the affirmative action admits at elite law schools are not poor kids from the ghettos and barrios, they're the sons and daughters of the minority elites, who went to elite urban or suburban public, or elite private, schools. They still don't have the test scores. No one wants to think this is true. You have to actually see it in action while in school or in practice to believe it.

I have to say it came as a shock to me, because my early experiences as an undergraduate, and as a graduate student with minority faculty who predated affirmative action, had led me to have very different expectations. First seeing the effects of affirmative action at the University of California was disorienting. Though the idea was to get kids up from the ghetto or barrio, what we got was the children of teachers, civil servants and professionals. Whose academic performance was less than stellar - which led to the demand for more special programs and the various ethnic studies departments which 'took care of their own'.

Meh!

I thought this was hilarious. Dude is actually trying to argue that Newt's multiple marriages are a sign of impending presidential greatness. I had to check the date on the article, to make sure it wasn't posted back on April Fool's Day.

coynedj wrote:I thought this was hilarious. Dude is actually trying to argue that Newt's multiple marriages are a sign of impending presidential greatness. I had to check the date on the article, to make sure it wasn't posted back on April Fool's Day.

"Conclusion: When three women want to sign on for life with a man who is now running for president, I worry more about whether we’ll be clamoring for a third Gingrich term, not whether we’ll want to let him go after one."

This may be the most illogical argument I have ever read.

kylemittskus wrote:"Conclusion: When three women want to sign on for life with a man who is now running for president, I worry more about whether we’ll be clamoring for a third Gingrich term, not whether we’ll want to let him go after one."

This may be the most illogical argument I have ever read.

And this is coming from a guy that teaches in Cali!

coynedj wrote:I thought this was hilarious. Dude is actually trying to argue that Newt's multiple marriages are a sign of impending presidential greatness. I had to check the date on the article, to make sure it wasn't posted back on April Fool's Day.

I don't even know what to make of this. By rights it *should* be an April Fool's joke, but it's entirely serious. Is this the level of thought going into selecting presidential candidates now? No wonder this country is not doing so well...

As I have written before for Fox News Opinion, I don’t think voters belong in a candidate’s bedroom. But the media can’t seem to help itself from trying to castrate candidates for the prurient pleasure of the public.

It's weird that this writer would say we shouldn't look into a candidate's personal (ie bedroom) matters when politicians seems so capable and happy to legislate on ours.

canonizer wrote:It's weird that this writer would say we shouldn't look into a candidate's personal (ie bedroom) matters when politicians seems so capable and happy to legislate on ours.

True. Yet, Newt's personal baggage does matter a little bit to me. I don't care what happens in his bedroom *shudder* but his inability to keep promises and his treatment of his wives are of concern.

They're all bozos.

I think I liked Ron Paul better last night than any of the other three....

But, foreign policy didn't come up at all last night, and, that's where he's weakest. On foreign policy, he sounds like the isolationists who wanted nothing to do with the larger world after the Great War. Given the geopolitical realities of the world, I reluctantly accept that we must act as a great power and protect our interests and our friends.

I do think, however, rather than paying for the defense we provide almost entirely ourselves, we should expect countries under our protection to pay a much larger share of the costs. Iraq, for example, should pay the entire cost of the war there. Any country where we have troops by local invitation, or which expects us to go to war to protect it, should be paying us something substantial towards the cost of the military defense we provide.

rpm wrote:Affirmative Action

For a long time, I wondered if my being hired as a developer was simply because I was female and they were filling a quota or because I was actually competent. It really tore down my own self-worth as an employee and made me question my abilities.

Until all the boys on the team proved themselves to be Wakkos and I was the only one left standing at layoff time, fixing all their garbage Plus the fact that nearly every manager on the team (except for the one I was working for) was fighting to get me. Yeah. That helped.

But I hate affirmative action. Mostly because it directly affects ME as a woman. I don't like having to question whether I was hired because of my skills and ability or if it's because I have a pair of boobs.

rpm wrote:They're all bozos.

I think I liked Ron Paul better last night than any of the other three....

But, foreign policy didn't come up at all last night, and, that's where he's weakest. On foreign policy, he sounds like the isolationists who wanted nothing to do with the larger world after the Great War. Given the geopolitical realities of the world, I reluctantly accept that we must act as a great power and protect our interests and our friends.

I do think, however, rather than paying for the defense we provide almost entirely ourselves, we should expect countries under our protection to pay a much larger share of the costs. Iraq, for example, should pay the entire cost of the war there. Any country where we have troops by local invitation, or which expects us to go to war to protect it, should be paying us something substantial towards the cost of the military defense we provide.

This is probably the closest you and I are going to get to agreeing about foreign policy issues; and it's pretty close. My question is identical to the question I have about something completely unrelated: health care. What if they don't? The answer for health care should be, "Let people die on the hospital steps." (It isn't the answer that's ever given, though.) So, with this situation, what if they don't front the costs? Would we really let the wolves get them?

In an unrelated question, what happens if Newt actually wins?

Edit: wins the pub vote, not the presidency. Is he better than Obama? Or just a different kind of Potty Emergency?

kylemittskus wrote:I'm not sure how I feel about these OctoCat "political-comments-worded-as-questions" microphone drops, but nevertheless...

Octocat. Stirring up trouble since 2011. I do it on Facebook a lot, too. Random link to a touchy, debatable article, with a comment of "Ready... Set... Discuss!"

I may or may not agree with the statements/articles that I throw out there. I usually never actually say. Most of the time I do it because I don't actually have an opinion and I am trying to form one, and a good way to do that is to have people debating around me so I can see the various viewpoints.

I also have a tendency to play Devil's Advocate and will debate for the side I'm actually against, just to get people thinking. Just because I post something about a topic does not necessarily mean I agree with what I'm posting. Also why I don't tend to do it that often. It hurts my brain.

cheron98 wrote:Octocat. Stirring up trouble since 2011.

Fair enough.

kylemittskus wrote:This is probably the closest you and I are going to get to agreeing about foreign policy issues; and it's pretty close. My question is identical to the question I have about something completely unrelated: health care. What if they don't? The answer for health care should be, "Let people die on the hospital steps." (It isn't the answer that's ever given, though.) So, with this situation, what if they don't front the costs? Would we really let the wolves get them?

In an unrelated question, what happens if Newt actually wins?

Edit: wins the pub vote, not the presidency. Is he better than Obama? Or just a different kind of Potty Emergency?

Of course Newt is better than Obama. Even Jimmah Cartuh was better than Obama (but just!).

If Newt wins the nomination, you're going to see (1) the nastiest campaign since forever, maybe 1800 or 1876; (2) some great political theater when Newt calls 'em like he sees 'em with the press and Obama; (3) a slightly probable Obama victory, but 'pubbie control of both house and senate.

I am not a Newt fan. But I'll take Newt over Santorum (ultramontane Catholics are not my thing: it was wrong in the 19th century and it's wrong today - I see Santorum as a less bright, less charming version of Pat Buchanan, though he may not be an antisemite like Buchanan).

And, I guess I'd take Romney over Newt, but again, just barely.


On your 'what if they don't pay' question, I suppose it depends on who and where they're located. If they're peripheral, let 'em go if they're not willing to contribute to their own defense. If we have to protect them to protect ourselves, it's more complicated. One idea might be to freeze their assets, and those of their citizens as we did with Iran after the revolution. Then seize the assets and sell them to pay the cost of their defense. I'm all for helping our friends who are willing to help themselves/us by contributing to the extent they can to the common defense. I'm not real sympathetic for countries who freeload on our military. I think of "contributing" as being willing to spend as much (as a percentage of GDP) as we do towards defense.