I'm all for the social safety net that is actually paid for, not lied about via borrowing. However, those into recreational genuflection have bought off on a medicare/social security plantation.
My recommendation is returning power to the states, where budgets are "balanced". The scare quotes acknowledge the speciousness of calling state budgets balanced when the public sector pensions aren't properly funded, and Janet's constantly yellin' for more printing at the Federal Reserve.

It depends on the circumstances.

If country XY is feeling vulnerable because a neighbor is clacking their teeth at them then they could just say "yes, come in... set up any where you want and we'll even pay for some of your facilities so you feel welcome".

We get that treatment in a few places.

It could be a situation where the country would like the US there but maybe they want the US to pay for stuff. In those cases we haggle over leasing fees etc. We've done that with the Saudis a few times as an example. Though they go both ways. Sometimes they contribute money to encourage us or to say they've done their part. And other times they want us to pay.

Then there are situations where country XY doesn't feel threatened at all and the US wants to put some facilities there to help with logistics but the locals generally don't give a shit. That requires something from the US.

What we offer in these matters is variable. Sometimes the country just wants us to be there as a deterrent from a rival. Other times the US will offer money or technology or something in return for the facilities.

We don't get bases by pointing a gun at their heads and saying "give us the base or we'll hurt you"... we don't feel good about that. However, we do feel entirely justified in saying "give us the base or we'll abandon you." Many people feel that is just as bad. But we don't see it that way. Denying us basing facilities makes it harder for us to do our job in the area... and if you're not prepared to offer us that then why should we be obligated to do anything for you? See?

So anyway... Americans are very good at making deals. This is gainsaid by people that don't grasp that making deals is a high art in and of itself and we are masters of it. And in that vein we have little trouble getting basing facilities anywhere in the world... often as not we get them in exchange for things that don't appear to cost us much if anything.

Look at all the countries bragging about how little they spend on their militaries... they get away with that because the US is their military. The people that then suggest the US should cut itself to those levels are really just confessing to be morons. Its always sort of funny... and sad.

I'm okay with the Muni offering a last mile hook up so long as they don't have a monopoly on the franchise.

If other ISPs can run last mile lines then I have no problem with the muni offering that service.

My issue is with a monopoly on the franchise. I don't want ANYONE to have a monopoly on it.

Not a corporation.
Not the muni.

FUCKING NO ONE.

Let me be very clear.

My problem is when the Muni says you CANNOT run last mile cable. THAT is my problem. Not who runs it. Anyone can run it that wants to run it so far as I am concerned. Go nuts. The Muni can run it. Comcast can run it. YOU can run it. I don't care who runs it. I care that people are FORBIDDEN to run it. THAT is when I get pissed.

My issue is when the muni says only X company can run cable or just as bad in my opinion... ONLY the Muni can run it.

Let anyone run it. Who cares. If they pay for space on the pole/conduit... then who cares?

really, I think the muni should own and lease space in a large communications conduit that runs under every street. THAT is what I think the muni should run.

A literal fucking "pipe". And then let anyone jam cable into that pipe that wants to do that.

Here people are going to come up with "problems" with this idea. And they're all from what I've seen tedious problems with obvious fucking solutions. I'd prefer constructive criticism on the issue. Don't tell me why it can't work because it can. Instead, tell me how you'd fix it so it worked in your opinion. But as to any comment that says "it can't work"... I reject that out of hand. It obviously can work and I take any comment to the contrary to be silly.

I entirely agree. I don't have any problem with individual russian people. Russian women are frequently hot... and Russian guys... while raging alcoholics are frequently amusing fellows that I'd love to share a beer with... a beer... not 10 liters of vodka because my blood will literally pickle. :D

Its so sad because the US keeps dreaming of making an alliance with Russia. We want it so bad. But the Russian government just can't see how stupid they're being.

Anyone that understand Americans knows that if Russia genuinely allied with us... we'd give them everything. Everything. The benefit for their society and people is really beyond calculation. And the US would profit enormously as well.

Can you imagine the Western hegemony with Russia as an ally within it? The level of clout at that point would be milk squirting out the nose hilarious. Everyone wins. Typical American master plan. But... the Russians refuse. We've been offering them this package since ... well before the cold war we were offering it... and then we started offering it again after the fall of the USSR.

The Russians make us sad sometimes with the opportunities they squander.

*laughs* pretty much.

I raised my eyebrow when I saw this and thought... "and zero fucks were given"

The day has not arrived when the US either considers any of china's weapons technology worth emulating or that we couldn't get a copy of it if we actually gave a shit.

So they're putting an export ban on something... Bored.

No, we have a sense of humour. It's altogether more civilised and allows for nuance, subtlety and more advanced forms of wit.

All of which were sadly absent from the alleged joke about weenies.

I've obviously been aware pretty much from the start that I was being trolled. I first tried engaging with you. But the problem is that your anonymity makes it hard to know if I'm talking to a shithead AC or a troll AC.

Anyway, that's why I had the new policy of not talking to you people... which to clarify is mostly a statement that I'm not regarding you as a legitimate commentator. It doesn't mean I won't call you a shit head. ;-)

The Okinawa situation is entirely a real estate dispute. Have you actually listened to the statements of such groups in the Japanese parliament?

I have.

Its about money.

The issue is that the Japanese government pays the island for the land the US uses... basically the island gets rental fees.

And the island feels the Japanese government doesn't pay enough... and should either pay more OR they should open the land up for development.

The drama beyond that is mostly concocted to support the above position. Something the US Navy makes too easy because it is the policy of the Navy to just pay people to go away if they make claims. So if you go to the Navy and say "hey some random dude raped me"... the Navy hands you money. Now does that mean that all rapes or whatever are bogus? Of course not. However, the statistics are more likely to be in line with what we expect out of the Naval bases elsewhere such as in San Diego etc. Which is to say, US sailors and Marines are not statistically more prone to rape etc than the general population. And deviations outside of those norms could easily be explained by the policy of the Navy on that island to just hand over a sack of cash when they have a problem.

Regardless, the Japanese government is entirely free to kick the US off those islands if they want us gone. If Japan said "go"... we'd go. We remain because the Japanese government wishes us to remain.

Might some local political group want us to go? Perhaps... but that's not how a republic works is it? Mob rule is what you're pushing? I don't quite get where you're going with this nonsense.

... its been common knowledge from the start and has been reaffirmed repeatedly... here is Obama doing it again:
http://www.rt.com/usa/obama-sh...

but it goes back to reagan... just doing some basic google searches gets me this:
http://www.thereaganvision.org...

Do I need better links than that... fine... its a waste of time but whatever:
https://www.larouchepub.com/ot...

That is Bill Clinton saying he would also share missile defense tech with Russia... LIKE REAGAN.

But lets see if I can find a better link.
http://www.washingtonexaminer....

That cites that the Russians even opposed a shared missile shield.

I mean... do I really need to go on? I'm sure I do... I'm sure you just couldn't accept anything short of the giant 18 inch dildo right up your ass... Sigh... why is it so annoying to find these links. Its a fucking well known fact but all I can get are sideways references to it. God damn it.

http://www.heritage.org/resear...

Another link referencing the same thing.

Every US president since Reagan has supported the idea of sharing the tech with Russia. Every single fucking one.

http://www.csmonitor.com/Comme...

That's Henry fucking Kissinger saying the idea is a good one.

I think I've got enough there that you can see the US has had this position from the very beginning and has not wavered from it since. The Russians basically are addicted to scaring people. They don't feel right with the world unless they make people afraid which is part of why the US and Russia don't get along. We're never going to be afraid of those idiots.

There are big cultural differences between the US and the Russians. They think hissing at us like a fucking snake is going to get them respect at the table. That is the LAST thing we'll ever respect. Hissing at us gets this response:
https://youtu.be/SoswyNaAIUA?t...

The Russians just don't get it. You don't get the US's respect by acting like a punk.

As to you never hearing this before... it has been in the policy from the beginning and repeated by every president in this context from the start. So your failure to hear it is on YOU. Feel shame.

The fact that you can see my sig means you are logged in and are intentionally going anonymous to troll.

Is it hard going through life being as stupid as you are? :D

AC fuckwits.

Nah, I just want you to login, shithead.

Karmashock doesn't tell you anything besides who I am on the site and a bit of my posting history here. You really can't get anything else of value out of that.

But it lets us have a conversation rather than AC talking to AC. Which frankly given your fucking stupidity on the subject is what you'd create.

Imagine this site with nothing but ACs. Wall to wall AC. Now... who would shiveled little trolls like you bitch about then?

Eh?

Seriously... you want to talk records? Login, shit for brains. We'll see what your record looks like. I'm sitting on an excellent karma rating. I'm assuming you tried your troll bullshit got rated down to pond scum and then just went to AC trolling.

Regardless... login and we can talk.

Short of that... you're just an AC shithead.

*kiss kiss*... and fuck off.

Yes. That has actually been the declared and official offer from the US for decades on this matter. We don't want an advantage over Russia in regards to nuclear weapons because we don't want to nuke Russia. We'd like to de-emphasize nuclear weapons because of the inherent collateral damage of such weapons.

When the next war comes we'd like that war to be as surgical and limited to military targets as possible while sparing civilians, industry, etc as much damage as possible.

This is in our interest because we don't want to suffer that damage ourselves.

We also prefer conventional forces to be more relevant because that also plays to our strengths. We have the most superior conventional forces in the world. So we don't feel we are losing a strategic edge by rendering ICBMs useless. We feel rather that our conventional forces become more strategically powerful in an environment where nuclear weapons are of limited usefulness.

As to ripple effects, that doesn't worry us because Russia has an economy smaller than Italy. The Soviets couldn't keep up with us so why would the Russian federation have any more luck?

The US has been offering to share this sort of tech with the Russians all along. We don't want a nuclear advantage over rival military powers. We want enough that we're credible. But the real punch of any military is its conventional force.

The United States is tired of being threatened by these doomsday weapons. So, we're going to continue developing and deploying them. Eventually rival ICBM tech is not going to be able to credibly penetrate our defenses. That is not going to be stopped.

We've been working towards this goal for decades. The Russians can accept the tech for free and be happy that we are mutually protected from nuclear attack. Something that is increasingly relevant as Iran gets nuclear weapons and the entire middle east follows suite. OR Russia can pretend that the old 1960s status quo will hold indefinitely.

Things change. The battleship used to rule the waves. The ICBM used to dominate geopolitics... those days are numbered.

... Yeah, we're not installing windows 10. That's the opinion of my outfit. We're sticking with windows 7 until we have a reason to change which could be a very long time.

We jumped from XP to 7. Vista never happened. This is for the terminal workstations. What we care about is whether our programs work, whether we have control over the operating system, whether performance/bugs are manageable, and... that's pretty much it.

Given that perspective which is typical of enterprise... selling me an upgrade requires a few things.

1. I want a feature that I as an enterprise user give a shit about. None of the stuff I'm seeing about windows 10 appears to be even remotely relevant.

2. If an os gets old and we have hardware issues as a result.

3. Compatibility with new software I want to use requires the new OS.

I mean... what else could I possibly care about?