birdog1960

i did. we'd likely be at war with boots on the ground with the minority isolationist republicans screaming but not listened to and the gullible public stirred into a frenzy of support by propaganda.

there's little doubt that assad used chemical weapons. the people killed and injured were in an area sympathetic to the resistance. assad did it because it's war and he's trying to destroy and break the will of his enemy. no mystery. and what exactly should have been done 2 years ago? enter another mid east war overtly? by most reports we've been involved covertly. it's a terrible situation: we can't condone the use of chemical weapons and we must respond in some manner to show it won't be tolerated. the rest of the mid east, especially israel and the saudi's know this. gthey're not worried about a chemical weapon attack on them as this is only likely to be used on weak opponents without the ability to effectively retaliate. they're worried about precedent and emboldening their enemies. remember that syria is allied with hezbellah(supporting the shiites) and iran . this is serious,exceedingly complex, grim business and there are no easy answers. a punitive strike with tomahawks is the easy answer but is it the right one? that's the question facing obama and he's right to deliberate imo. he needs international cover and it's dwindling for the same reasons american support is. maybe the burden should be placed on those with the most to lose (other than the syrian people): israel, saudis, jordan, emirates, kuwait etc. making political hay out of this is counterproductive and stupid. if he acted yesterday, the criticism from you all might even be louder especially if things went down poorly. he's wise and strong to ignore the objections and cat calls.

i don't think it's that they don't care, i think many feel a "punitive" attack won't help or will make things worse. heard a military expert discussing such strikes in history. most successful was at the end of the first gulf war and we all know how that "ended" with another war a few years later. in that attack they killed senior leadership of the republican guard and he said syria would have a similar target. but there's never been a similar attack that completely stopped what it was meant to. then, of course there's the russian sabre rattling and the chinese...finally, there's the markets in a fragile economy. they didn't respond well to the threat of an imminent attack.

the sources for the numbers are clearly identified in the piece and in your post. for more detail and background i'd go to the cited sources. didn't see any mention of woodstock or campfire songs.

perhaps he believes the proposed actions will not have the desired effect. perhaps he feels that the un's authority should not be bypassed. clearly he disagrees with obama on what the world's red line is at this point in time. unfortunately, the reality is that "the worlds" red line in the un on this issue will be dictated by russian and chinese leaders and thus may not reflect the world's red line at all. what assertions, specifically, do you dispute in this pbs report?

alternatively, might it be that "those few families" were thrust into poverty because "market forces" did not provide for a living wage for their working parents? do you really buy the bs you're spreading? so, you're ok with subsidizing the 10-20% bottom of the curve that will never likely qualify for higher skilled and paying jobs into perpetuity? clear. just so we both understand, sans obamaphones, you don't and won't resent or denigrate that group for accepting such assistance, right?

kerry said today that this is not about obama's red line but about the world's red line. he's absolutely correct. i wonder how many debating this at the water cooler know anything about syria; it's population, geography, ethnic and religious make up, casualties, economic impact, displaced people etc. thank goodness there's pbs: http://www.pbs.org/newshour/rundown/2013/09/your-cheat-sheet-to-the-syrian-conflict.html.

then lets go back to the 10 -20 percent that you don't care about or don't care to address. which of the following options do you like best: thewm working for a living wage, them working for a sub- living wage but subsidized bt rthe taxpayer, them not working and survivng on welfare or them attempting to survive without adequate money for food, shelter or healthcare. feel free to add other options.

it has everything to do with it. if you're arguing that capitilsm is the best system then we must first define it. is it the pure unadulterated theoretical model or the bastardized and cherry picked version now being pacticed here. they are two very different things. i would suggest we start with the impure, real world model as it's that we are trying to improve, or not improve. are you suggesti8ng that there has been only one study designed to answer this question? or that this is the only study that you find important on the subject?

and there's the general difference between partisan sites on the left and right. the rightward ones often don't even acknowledge dissenting view points and data while the left actually try to refute them. a cursory search about minimum wage and it's impact on employment and the economy as a whole shows it to be a very hotly debated subject among economists. for example, some put forth that the economic return on an extra dollar in a minumum wage workers hand will have more stimulative effect than in any other hand. why? cuz they're going to spend it now or very soon. but your cited article implies that these are settled issues in the economist community and to question the conclusions put forth by the article would be absurd.

yes and yes. there are many people that are unlikey to ever function well at jobs above those currently paid minimum wage. look at a bell curve for intelligence in a population. let's then define the us as the population. do i really want someone in the bottom decile or even the bottom 2 deciles working as my nurse? doing data entry? what nonminimum wage job would you envision those folks doing? 0.2X 330 million is more than a few people...even .1 is many... so what would be the end result of pure capitalism and its design? i'd be willing to bet we'd again see sweatshops and child labor and factory fires and 80 hour work weeks. we have history to inform us. and is that desirable? we have far from pure capitalism now. moving a bit further form the absolute which appears to produce terrible results, doesn't seem such a bad idea.

firstly, no one said minimum wage was a cure all. it's a start. secondly, perhaps no one is "supposed" to be working minimum wage at 56 (i agree, if you define minimum wage at the current levle) but are their enough living wage jobs around for everyone at 56 to have one? the answer is clearly "no". in your nostalgia for "the good old days" you might want to look at life expectancy, living conditions (standard of living), child labor and unsafe working conditions (and even factory catastrophes as cited in an earlier post). and yes there was unrest. there was an undeclared war in west virginia between coal workers and their masters for example. but the company always won so it's not talked about so much. and the biggest issue is that when a living wage isn't provided, the slack is made up. are you arguing that it won't soon be. if you accept the premise that it will then there are only a finite number of solutions. prehaps you imagine others than i stated. by all means, share them. finally, "personal welfare" was so stated to differentiate it from corporate welfaRE. if you didn't understand the meaning, then i understand your search for iunternet precendence. if you did, it seems a silly waste of time.

so, the alternatives to corporate welfare, in this scenario are personal welfare and letting people try to exist without necessities. the latter threatens societal unrest (we'll disregard the conscience argument) and is not gonna happen. therefore, you're choosing personal welfare as the solution while simulataneously criticizing those that accept it. and mcdonalds and walmarts entire business model hinges on the current system, not that it couldn't be adapted if forced.

this... ridiculous to compare an injury in a weekend warrior to one that pushes his body and especially his feet, to the limit in his day to day tasks. watch for an article on him getting platelet rich plasma injections into the foot if he doesn't progress. little data but the newest, hottest treatment. if he gets this, you can be pretty certain it's not put on. if he doesn't, you can't conclude the converse.

it relates in that there are about 1.2 million adult fast food workers that are employed in such jobs as their primary source of income that are subsidized by taxpayers to make ends meet every month to the benefit of the fast food industry -ie corporate welfare. in addition, there are likely millions more that would choose to work in such or similar jobs if the compensation matched or bettered welfare.

yes, they are very good. they've had the same head coach for the same amount of timer we've had 3 or four and the same qb. no front page articles about cheaping out on contracts or squabbles about who makes the decisions. think if these two were in buffalo, the story would be the same?

go back and see what the original premise of the thread was and ask yourself how this piece of data relates.

has anyone considered the possibility that byrd's injury is legitimate? training camp injuries are pretty common. it's rather likely that it is. just don't get the rationale of many on this board. byrd tries to negotiate a better deal for himself and fails and he's evil. rw negotiates against the fans for 50 years and wins and folks here are upset at his accurate characterization in a deadspin satire. go figure...

i read "the common picture of the fast food worker is inaccurate...". did you read something else?

this question was debated here as well. lets look at some analysis: http://www.latimes.c...0,6607607.story...about 16% i'd say.

some interesting numbers dispelling some common myths: http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-505143_162-57600587/fast-food-strikes-underline-big-national-problem/

just what i was thinking.

heard this on the ride to work today. http://www.nbcphiladelphia.com/news/health/Dont-Wash-Chicken-Cross-Contamination-Drexel-220340821.html guess i should stop doing that.

If this is true, then he's one of the biggest failures in the history of professional sports. if you accept the astros model theory, he's been extremely successful.

pbs is the best network on tv for precisely this reason, imo. i suppose they're beholden to the federal gov't since they have historically paid some of the bills but not so much anymore. i'll be watching this one as i watch most "frontline" episodes. but it's not like the fans or the players don't realize that they're 21st century gladiators.