If Conservatives Have Such Great Ideas....

[Fumo1]

[quote name='LZ22' date='21 April 2010 - 05:11 PM' timestamp='1271884280' post='464691']
[quote name='acolorado' date='15 April 2010 - 02:15 PM' timestamp='1271358925' post='463769']
[quote name='LZ22' date='13 April 2010 - 10:48 PM' timestamp='1271220518' post='463558']
Ladies and gentlemen,

I am guilty of this as well but feel the need to post this anyways. This thread has turned into a hateful, "you're wrong I am right because I said so" ranting post. There are endless "facts" that can be thrown from each side of the spectrum to the other to prove the other side wrong. In turn, there are endless "facts" that counter those other "facts" to negate any argument. The fact remains, whether you agree with it or not, both political parties have done damage to this country that will be very tough to reverse. I have seen many other threads where each and every one of you has stated that you hate how hostile and partisan the country is and how damaging it is. Somehow, in those threads you all believe that you have seen the light and don't want to contribute to the hostile partisanship. However, what has been said in this thread is the exact same of hostile partisanship that you people believe are toxic. I believe, as the future generations, we need to try to overcome this otherwise we will just be in the exact same place years down the road. Everyone has their own beliefs, I realize that, but the damage has been done and we need to find solutions...not someone to blame.

This article was in USA Today this morning and it makes it very clear that we are on the brink of a serious problem, regardless of who is to blame (both parties ) As a quote in the article, we are on the brink of the most predictable financial disaster in history. The bickering needs to end and solutions need to happen.
Link: [url="http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2010-04-12-deficit_N.htm?csp=hf"]http://www.usatoday....it_N.htm?csp=hf[/url]
[/quote]

I believe this is a case of false equivalency. If you spend a little time over at politifact.com or factcheck.org you're going to realize pretty quickly that currently Republicans are responsible for the vast majority of dishonesty and misinformation floating around right now. Do your homework on the debt, the deficit, taxes, HCR, - virtually anything and you'll find that there are rock-bottom facts based on solid evidence which tell the true story. Nearly all of them support Dems at the moment. Fact check both Republicans and Dems and pretty soon you'll be a solid Dem, at least if you have any appreciation of honesty and actual facts.

The only way you can say that the two parties are equally responsible for our problems right now is if you are willing to accept lies for truths and fictions for fact - and if you refuse to do your homework. I understand that it's easier to just accept the simple story spun out by the media that dig out the truth, but that doesn't make you a well-informed voter.

Living under self-imposed ignorance doesn't make you independent or balanced - it just makes you uninformed and misled, which I think the Republicans are perfectly happy with. If they do 80% of the lying, misleading, and hypocrisy - it suits them just fine to be blamed for only half of it. That's the case today. Of course they don't want anyone to look for the party to blame - they know who it is and they would rather "look to the future" and not to the past.

Look at the voting records on important issues which have come up in Congress this year. It's very partisan. The Dems are trying to fix problems, and regardless of how much good it will do the country, the Republicans are opposing them. They want the Dems to fail in all efforts to help this country, have said so out loud repeatedly, and are strategising now on how to continue to oppose every effort to improve the situation. They are the party of NO, no matter what the issue is. The one thing which is obvious is that if you really want solutions, there really is only one party offering those right now.

The longer people refuse to accept this, the longer we have a system with only one viable party.
[/quote]

Haha how do you expect to be taken serious in a political debate? You claim that republicans have lied about every single thing, they are responsible for every dollar of debt, they are responsible for every bad woe that has fallen upon this country. In the meantime, you claim the Democrats are the bringers of prosperity, always tell the truth, always fixing every problem. You lecture me that I should do some fact checking...yet you provide ZERO facts to back up your points, other than the fact that you have a "I know I am right and you are wrong" mentality.

I do find this quote, "I understand that it's easier to just accept the simple story spun out by the media that dig out the truth, but that doesn't make you a well-informed voter." a little amusing...in the sense that an independent study I posted in a previous post in this thread concluded the media is predominately left-leaning. Which by your assertion, I should be liberal.

"The one thing which is obvious is that if you really want solutions, there really is only one party offering those right now. The longer people refuse to accept this, the longer we have a system with only one viable party." --- Seriously, are you like a spokesperson for Nancy Pelosi or something? You sound like you are reading a script with a gun to your head!

Since you really have not provided any of "your homework," you have zero credibility. Please post evidence and support to your accusations.
[/quote]


All I have to say is small government. Limitations on the ability of government to get into your wallets. The government cannot legislate social outcomes. How many democratic governments with limited powers have you seen that become despotic? Now look in recent history at the Nazis and the Communist models of governments. You could re-populate the United States with the people they have murdered.

Also I find it ironic that the very governments people complain so much about have these very same people voting to empower it with more control over their lives. Government will never be an efficent instrument for dealing with anything in an reasonable or efficent way. Once the polititions find a way to use a policy or an issue to their advantage they do so. I have never found a Democrat or Republican that could not throw mud on each other until the end of time.

The issue is what policys bring prosperity to the majority of people in a society. Generally speaking that is getting government out of the way and let business and the free market work. You will always have rich and poor and everything in the middle in any society. Socialism works from the bottom up and capatilizim from the top down. Which societies have been more prosperous as a whole. Which citizens have more personal freedoms and a better quality of life on balance. Give me a government that provides the framework for the populace to be productive, provides personal freedom, has strong ownership rights and can keeps government corruption to a minimum and you have a great country and society. Take any of these away and you have major problems.

Take personal responsability and don't look for the government to solve your problems.

[mustafabey]

I am not about to get into the whole socialist vs patriots thing. What we probably need is balance, not too far right not too far left. loonies at both ends of the spectrum. Yes,Conservatives lie, so do liberals. What happens really is a distortion of the facts to suit thier own needs. "Obama's death boards" are an example of how something can be distorted to serve your own ends. What scares me most is that people are pandering to hatred and prejudice to get their message out. Conservatives say they aren't racist, but they sure do encourage the red necks out here in "Palin Country", they've got the "christians",too. Liberals pander to their unions, the far left wingers who are socialists and those who believe atheism should negate peoples right to pray. It was this way in the 60's, I came back from Nam, greeted with baby killersigns and tomatos. Hippies got beat up by the "silent majority" all kinds of hate shit going down then, civil rights was a big issue. Well, I reckon ya gotta have faith in America. The electorate will hopefully figure it out. I'm independent and tend towards liberal view of things, but I think the tea party movement is essentially a good thing( if its really grass roots, not astroturf) because maybe people are beginning to think. Liberal, conservative, whatever, its time to start being Americans!
I have a Congressman out here 6th district of Va, he's a die hard conservative, votes pretty much party line every time, but when I had tax issues, and the Corps of Engineers threatened to dam up Craigs Creek and make lake out of it.(Water storage for Richmond), Ole Bob did the right thing, he helped his people defeated the dam and got me a good deal with IRS. So bottom line, I'll vote for him everytime, cause he cares.
I know I get long winded

[Rani]

[quote name='mustafabey' date='23 May 2010 - 09:54 AM' timestamp='1274633645' post='469141']
I am not about to get into the whole socialist vs patriots thing. What we probably need is balance, not too far right not too far left. loonies at both ends of the spectrum. Yes,Conservatives lie, so do liberals. What happens really is a distortion of the facts to suit thier own needs. "Obama's death boards" are an example of how something can be distorted to serve your own ends. What scares me most is that people are pandering to hatred and prejudice to get their message out. Conservatives say they aren't racist, but they sure do encourage the red necks out here in "Palin Country", they've got the "christians",too. Liberals pander to their unions, the far left wingers who are socialists and those who believe atheism should negate peoples right to pray. It was this way in the 60's, I came back from Nam, greeted with baby killersigns and tomatos. Hippies got beat up by the "silent majority" all kinds of hate shit going down then, civil rights was a big issue. Well, I reckon ya gotta have faith in America. The electorate will hopefully figure it out. I'm independent and tend towards liberal view of things, but I think the tea party movement is essentially a good thing( if its really grass roots, not astroturf) because maybe people are beginning to think. Liberal, conservative, whatever, its time to start being Americans!
I have a Congressman out here 6th district of Va, he's a die hard conservative, votes pretty much party line every time, but when I had tax issues, and the Corps of Engineers threatened to dam up Craigs Creek and make lake out of it.(Water storage for Richmond), Ole Bob did the right thing, he helped his people defeated the dam and got me a good deal with IRS. So bottom line, I'll vote for him everytime, cause he cares.
I know I get long winded
[/quote]

I had a long involved political discussion with Eric, whom you might have come across some references to, but likely being new, don't know how much a part of this forum and the industry he is. (Said for reference only because everyone else will know exactly how such a discussion would have come about since he's our much loved moderate leaning towards liberal. [img]http://www.hookahforum.com/public/style_emoticons/default/girl_blum2.gif[/img] ) Anyway, we kind of came to the conclusion that the biggest problem with our electorate right now isn't so much their personal views but the distance. We have too few to be completely in touch with what the people want because it's just too overwhelming to have to administrate to so many people within your district, or state. No one gets through except the loonies, because no one of any normal mentality (aka "with a life") is going to go through the morass to get through to make their views known. So if all our legislators have to go on is the lunacy that actually gets through, then all they have to respond to is that lunacy. Strange as it sounds I think we need more of them available at the ground floor level where they are reachable to the will of the people as a whole, not just the loonies who take the time to go sit in front of their offices until they listen. If everybody you come in contact with and who votes you to keep your job says "the moon is made of Camembert" eventually you're going to agree with the Camembert contingent to keep your job because you believe Camembert is the will of the people. It is after all the will of all the people you come in contact with so that's the party line you tow.

What makes a good legislator isn't party affiliation, it's something you pointed out. A finger on the pulse of what's important to their constituents and willingness to get involved. To actually court the opinion of those people you are responsible for. In this age of technology, there's also no reason a Senator or Representative can't have their website post issues with poll votes to be taken by the public. We do it here, there isn't any reason whatsoever the US Government can't do the same. Each bill could be placed in a condensed form (leaving out all the "we believe Al Quida is responsible for and therefore" that are populating bills these days) on their website in a way that says "this is what it is, and this is what it does" and the people themselves can place their poll vote. Now I get that some would be doubtful the sites couldn't be hacked and misdirected, but if the US Government can't come up with enough system security to prevent that kind of interference, we're in very deep shit already technology speaking. And despite movies to the contrary, I don't really think hackers are hitting up the Pentagon intranet on a regular basis.

I would say your legislator is a good one because he's paying attention. But as one of the smaller states he has a better chance of doing so. Where the states are much bigger, we need to enable our legislators to actually know what the majority of those they are responsible for want. Right now it's not very accurate with lobbyists running the whole shindig. That I think is the main thing we need to change. The ability of the people to voice their opinions outside of rallies with loonies carrying signs and burning political figures in effigy.

'Rani

[mustafabey]

Rani said:

Anyway, we kind of came to the conclusion that the biggest problem with our electorate right now isn't so much their personal views but the distance. We have too few to be completely in touch with what the people want because it's just too overwhelming to have to administrate to so many people within your district, or state.

I see one major problem with the electorate today. They don't think. They want prepackaged belief systems with their own mythology, whether it be political or religious. Like OK I'm a libertarian and a Zoroastrian. Its all laid out. just like on TV.

Where is the outrage over lives being lost to satisfy Halliburton. Lying our way into war. Someone once said America thinks its democracy, it isn't but the people haven't found out yet. Its all about the next American Idol or some idiot trivia about people like the Gosselin's ( Not quite sure what they are, but judging the attention CNN pays to them, they must cabinet secrataries,leaders of important nations or rap singers. Don't reckon they smoke hookahs,though)

[Rani]

[quote name='mustafabey' date='23 May 2010 - 02:30 PM' timestamp='1274650202' post='469172']
Rani said:

Anyway, we kind of came to the conclusion that the biggest problem with our electorate right now isn't so much their personal views but the distance. We have too few to be completely in touch with what the people want because it's just too overwhelming to have to administrate to so many people within your district, or state.

I see one major problem with the electorate today. They don't think. They want prepackaged belief systems with their own mythology, whether it be political or religious. Like OK I'm a libertarian and a Zoroastrian. Its all laid out. just like on TV.

Where is the outrage over lives being lost to satisfy Halliburton. Lying our way into war. Someone once said America thinks its democracy, it isn't but the people haven't found out yet. Its all about the next American Idol or some idiot trivia about people like the Gosselin's ( Not quite sure what they are, but judging the attention CNN pays to them, they must cabinet secrataries,leaders of important nations or rap singers. Don't reckon they smoke hookahs,though)
[/quote]

I have to agree to disagree perhaps out of my own naivety. While I think they are making major mistakes and there is substantial doubt as to their basic morality and integrity, I can't quite bring myself to believe that anyone would get up in the morning and intentionally plan on defrauding the very people they are responsible for. I think they honestly believe their decisions are in our best interest.

It's all about the power of words. We have a bunch of supremely intelligent people on this forum. We're all very good at finding reports and quotations that support our personal views. Yet all of what comes to us are words. If the words are persuasive enough, you buy into them. Our legislators are surrounded by and the focus of words spouting from conglomerates and the lobbyists for those conglomerates, seeking to sway their opinions and actions. Often they find out years later they made horrendous mistakes but at the time they made their decisions and took their actions, under the sway of those words they made what they believed to be the best decisions. With the right words we can be convinced (and convince ourselves) we are doing the right thing.

I call it Henry the 8th mentality. What was the difference in a couple murdered wives under false convictions when the fate of his nation was at stake? Sure it was all lies. Lies he believed and spewed himself, but he had managed to convince himself it was for the betterment of his people in the interest of producing an heir to ensure a stable monarchy. Tell yourself a story long enough and you too can pass any polygraph on Earth - even your own internal one.

'Rani

[mustafabey]

Don't you think Usama bin Ladin feels for the people and believes what he is doing for the people's best interest? They start to believe their lies.

[Rani]

[quote name='mustafabey' date='23 May 2010 - 05:57 PM' timestamp='1274662628' post='469196']
Don't you think Usama bin Ladin feels for the people and believes what he is doing for the people's best interest? They start to believe their lies.
[/quote]

My point exactly.

'Rani

[mustafabey]

Actually, with all the crap going it,s been quite peaceful this last 1/2 century after WW II. We're spoiled. Wars,invasions,plagues what have you were common place. The 20th century reads like all the past centuries up until 1945. We're overdue for some kind of mayhem.

[Rani]

I'm going to exit the discussion with a quote from one of my favorite books, that I think kind of sums it up:

"Though there are lessons to be drawn from the fall of an empire, the suppression of personal freedoms and pleasure will never prevent the chaos and destruction that can be wrought from misguided politics and extremist religions."
[i]- Michael Flocker, The Hedonism Handbook - [/i]

[TheScotsman]

[quote name='Rani' date='25 May 2010 - 12:45 AM' timestamp='1274766306' post='469379']
I'm going to exit the discussion with a quote from one of my favorite books, that I think kind of sums it up:

[color="#ff00ff"][b][u]"Though there are lessons to be drawn from the fall of an empire, the suppression of personal freedoms and pleasure will never prevent the chaos and destruction that can be wrought from misguided politics and extremist religions."[/u][/b][/color]
[i]- Michael Flocker, The Hedonism Handbook - [/i]
[/quote]





Should be tattooed backwards, on the forehead of every mouthpiece we elect.

[acolorado]

I made the charge that many conservatives don't do their homework and don't provide facts to back up their "ideas".

Here we find The Scotsman and Lz22 proving me right. It's a beautiful thing. I could have never found an argument as persuasive as their responses.

Both claim I'm not using facts to back up my arguments in the posts above and going on "generalized BS". If they had bothered to read this thread they would find I provide TONS of facts to back up my ideas. Below are my posts in this thread where i either provide the source of the information I use or a link to it.
Page 1- post 11
Page 1 - post 13
Page 1 - post 19
Page1 - post 23
Page 2 - post 32
Page 2 - post 36

Not once - NOT ONCE - in this entire thread has Scotsman provided a single reference to one source to back up any argument. The facts aren't out there to back up his ideas and he knows it.

LZ22 does - which I respect - but he then claims I'm not providing any facts to back up my arguments. Check the posts I reference - there they are, and there they would have been if you had bothered to go back and check.

What I've learned is that arguing with a conservative is like arguing with a brick wall. It just doesn't matter how much evidence is out there for something - they often simply ignore it. We can point out the studies and official figures all day long, but these folks just don't care. Whether something is true or not is simply not important to their worldview.

Instead The Scotsman has to compare arguing with me to arguing with a 15 year old girl. If you know a 15 year old who references as many actual facts as I do she must be pretty smart, and I can see you must be losing those arguments and not liking it one bit.

LZ22 claims I'm not credible because I don't provide the facts he simply didn't bother to read.

Way to go guys. But the cherry on top is below.

I encourage everyone to go study up on The Scotsmans little blurb here:

"Conservatives are not the party of no.... we are the party of HELL NO!

Hell no! No more spending without paying for it, no more unconstitutional infringements on the rights and liberties of individuals, no more wealth redistribution to people that don't earn anything as a result of their laziness/stupidity-no more nany-state controls over each little thing. No more foreign aid to countries that hate us, no more illegal imigration. Personally I like being part of that "hell-no" party."

1. No more spending without paying for it.
- Like the Bush tax cuts, Medicare Plan D, or the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan? All were non-funded, meaning they went straight to the deficit. All were passed when Republicans controlled the White House, the House, and the Senate.
[url="http://old.nationalreview.com/nrof_bartlett/bartlett200509280837.asp"]My link[/url] - this is what a Conservative who actually believes in responsible spending sounds like.
[url="http://www.forbes.com/2009/11/19/republican-budget-hypocrisy-health-care-opinions-columnists-bruce-bartlett.html"]My link[/url] - oh look another article with tons of references to FACTS on how Republicans spent, spent, spent and never payed for it.
[url="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/donnie-fowler/deficit-debt-the-republic_b_370716.html"]My link[/url] - oh darn, most of the deficit is left over from when the Republicans ran things and spent, spent, spent without ever paying for it. Huh. P.S. Lz22 - you see the source for the graph printed below it. You can then go to the CBO page and look it up. Cool, huh!

2. No more constitutional infringements on the rights and liberties of individuals.
- Like indefinite detention brought to you by the Republican Party? Because I like to be honest and fair, the fact is Obama is doing this too - and it's STILL unconstitutional!
[url="http://www.thenewamerican.com/index.php/usnews/constitution/3664-obama-life-imprisonment-without-trial"]My link[/url]
- Or Torture? Yeah - believe it or not - torture is unconstitutional - which didn't matter to the Republicans or Bush.
[url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eighth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution"]My link[/url]

3. No more wealth redistribution to people that didn't earn it
- Again - the Bush tax cuts for the rich. Many of those folks did nothing but inherit Daddy's money. So we have to pay more so they can pay less. They get richer and we get poorer. WoW, Republicans would NEVER support that it's redistrubution... oh that was their plan... hrmmmm.
[url="http://www.tax.com/taxcom/features.nsf/Articles/0DEC0EAA7E4D7A2B852576CD00714692?OpenDocument"]My link[/url] - P.S. LZ22, you can click the magic link to the left and it will take you to the source with more information, and there are links and references there that will take you to even more information. Cool, huh!

4. No more nany-state (sic) controls over each little thing.
- Like religion? Where did it ever say we should keep church and state seperate anyway?
[url="http://www.religioustolerance.org/chr_10c3.htm"]My link[/url]


5. No more foreign aid to countries that hate us.
- Like the billions that Bush sent to Pakistan, that well known haven for the Taliban and Osama Bin Laden, even when it was ruled by a dictator?
[url="http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/05/washington/05diplo.html"]My link[/url]

If you really believed in any of the things you mentioned Scotsman, and had bothered to do even a modicum of homework on any of it, then you wouldn't be voting Republican. To do so simply makes it appear that you are uninformed and hypocritical, which I'm sure you're not and never, ever, would be, in spite of not having brought any facts to this debate and having to resort to silly insults. Just trying to be helpful.

Someone here mentioned I have an "I'm right and you're wrong attitude" when debating our shining conservatives. Well, when you're debating people who can't be bothered to dig up a little evidence in reply, you pretty quickly realize they just don't know what they're talking about, and yes, that you're right and they're wrong. Edited June 2, 2010 by mushrat
mushrat cleared up some words.

[Venger]

I refuse to get drawn into the political side of this argument as I am not a republican or a democrat. I am a conservative libertarian min-archest.
But you knew that. The reason I am breaking my silence is your heavy reliance on "facts". Trust me I can prove anything with "facts" even that the earth is flat if you really want me to. It is a fact that broccoli is a killer. How do I know this? Every person that has eaten broccoli has died or will in the future. I am not saying your facts are not valid but you have to be vary careful when on the thin ice of "proving" something. Who is the source,what is their spin,what can they gain by spinning for or against themselves,who paid for the study. A good thing to remember when gathering facts is this simple rule FOLLOW THE MONEY.for example global warming\climate change. We have scientists on both sides who claim they have the facts.but if you follow the money the side that says it is humans that are causing it are the ones who want to tax you to deal with it and al gore is the guy you buy the carbon credits from. The guys who say it is BS are getting paid by big oil. So who is right? Maybe someday we can have true objectivity but until that day you needs to read BOTH sides and decide in your heart and mind who is correct or not. You still might be wrong but at least you did your best to be open minded.REALLY OPEN MINDED.
Ray
-END OF LINE-

[mushrat]

This thread will go the way of the other political threads if it doesn't stay polite.

We may have to stop allowing political discussion on this HOOKAH forum if they are all going to quickly degenerate into name calling, finger in the ear repeating of the same basic bullshit, with no actual discussion going on. Merely a flinging of the same tired worn out liberal/conservative Democrat/republican slogans and generalizations.

[matias]

[quote name='Venger' date='02 June 2010 - 04:54 PM' timestamp='1275490499' post='470289']
I refuse to get drawn into the political side of this argument as I am not a republican or a democrat. I am a conservative libertarian min-archest.
But you knew that. The reason I am breaking my silence is your heavy reliance on "facts". Trust me I can prove anything with "facts" even that the earth is flat if you really want me to. It is a fact that broccoli is a killer. How do I know this? Every person that has eaten broccoli has died or will in the future. I am not saying your facts are not valid but you have to be vary careful when on the thin ice of "proving" something. Who is the source,what is their spin,what can they gain by spinning for or against themselves,who paid for the study. A good thing to remember when gathering facts is this simple rule FOLLOW THE MONEY.for example global warming\climate change. We have scientists on both sides who claim they have the facts.but if you follow the money the side that says it is humans that are causing it are the ones who want to tax you to deal with it and al gore is the guy you buy the carbon credits from. The guys who say it is BS are getting paid by big oil. So who is right? Maybe someday we can have true objectivity but until that day you needs to read BOTH sides and decide in your heart and mind who is correct or not. You still might be wrong but at least you did your best to be open minded.REALLY OPEN MINDED.
Ray
-END OF LINE-
[/quote]

Well Ray, your argument is a bit light. I might be wrong but what you say sounds like "You are relying on facts, facts can be wrong or lies, therefore I am suspicious of your arguments". Your example about broccoli is not an example of "facts". It is an example of stupidity (not Ray's, Mush, I am not calling him stupid nor anyone apart from the anonymous and fictitious hero of the broccoli story). This example doesn't even start to remove legitimacy from using facts. It would be like saying: people can use stupid arguments therefore one should refrain from using arguments and using arguments leads nowhere.

Acolorado has done his homework and is providing sources backing up his statements. They might be wrong, they might be right, they might be partly-right partly wrong but anyone willing to answer him has to do his homework too and look into the sources and come up with some argumentated rebuttal. It doesn't do to just say that providing sources for facts has no value because "facts" can prove broccoli is lethal.

I am sorry to say that attitudes like TheScotsman's are not limited to conservatives. It is all too widespread all over the political spectrum. The Scotsman limits his arguments to putting forth his view of things but ignores any argumentated and fact-backed criticism of it. He usually limits his retorts to ad hominem attacks or putting in doubt the validity of the other's arguments, but without ever actually giving an argument. Even though he has, for these reasons, zero credibility with me, I always read his post, hoping he will actually make a valid point. I am always disappointed. By valid point, I do not mean a point I agree with, only something that is a reasoned point. There are some articulate, coherent, capable of reasoning conservatives. Until now TheScotsman has not shown himself to be one in my opinion. TSm, let's see you answering acolorado's points, not just dancing around the issues.

My post itself is more of a rant than an argumentated opinion, so it is fine with me if it is flamed or ignored, but it won't make TSm any bit less what he is.

[Rani]

Here's the problem I have with the conservative movement which generally calls itself the Republican Party.

I'm a registered Democrat, not necessarily because I buy the party line, but because the Democratic Party more closely aligns with my own personal views. Yet I'm not happy with Barbara Boxer. I think she's done enormous damage to personal freedoms in this country, so I'd like to see her lose this election. There are a couple people running against her that I think might do a good job from what I'm hearing and reading about them.

The problem is they're Republican. In the past I would have had no problem voting a Republican rather than the Democratic candidate (and have done so), but not these days. The "conservative" end of the Republican Party has become so diametrically opposed to bi-partisan solutions to anything that I have zero trust in the party doing anything to help the situation we've gotten ourselves into. I don't necessarily think the Democratic Party is going to do any better, but at least I'm reasonably certain there won't be any stonewalling going on for the sake of Party solidarity and damn the fact that we need to make changes and get things done.

I believe the conservatives have shot themselves in the foot and as a result have done serious damage to the credibility and trust factor. They're all geared up for November thinking things are going to change and I suspect they might be in for a very ugly surprise. And the sad thing is, even then they won't get it. They'll be terribly confused if the American people keep a Democratic strength. They'll think that's what we want. They never get that what really motivated the vote was overwhelming fear that voting Republican was a guarantee that nothing would get done.

'Rani

[matias]

[quote name='Venger' date='02 June 2010 - 04:54 PM' timestamp='1275490499' post='470289']
Trust me I can prove anything with "facts" even that the earth is flat if you really want me to.[/quote]
Go ahead Ray, give us a little example of how you can prove the Earth is flat with "facts". I am sure you can try and prove it with facts that can be shown to be unfounded and wrong, but as we will prove them so, you will have proven nothing but the opposite of what you set out to demonstrate. I am not being sarcastical. This will be an interesting exercise that may indeed prove me wrong. Please be as good as your word. I have set up a post for this purpose: [url="http://www.hookahforum.com/topic/38165-proving-the-earth-is-flat-with-facts/page__view__findpost__p__470327"]http://www.hookahforum.com/topic/38165-proving-the-earth-is-flat-with-facts/page__view__findpost__p__470327[/url]

[Venger]

[quote name='matias' date='02 June 2010 - 02:39 PM' timestamp='1275503989' post='470328']
[quote name='Venger' date='02 June 2010 - 04:54 PM' timestamp='1275490499' post='470289']
Trust me I can prove anything with "facts" even that the earth is flat if you really want me to.[/quote]
Go ahead Ray, give us a little example of how you can prove the Earth is flat with "facts". I am sure you can try and prove it with facts that can be shown to be unfounded and wrong, but as we will prove them so, you will have proven nothing but the opposite of what you set out to demonstrate. I am not being sarcastical. This will be an interesting exercise that may indeed prove me wrong. Please be as good as your word. I have set up a post for this purpose: [url="http://www.hookahforum.com/topic/38165-proving-the-earth-is-flat-with-facts/page__view__findpost__p__470327"]http://www.hookahfor...post__p__470327[/url]
[/quote]

well In short that was my point. Just be careful to not believe everything you read.verify the sources.see if anyone with any credibility can back up the findings. Just because Rush Limbaugh says something does not make it true. That was my only point really.
Ray

[matias]

[quote name='Venger' date='02 June 2010 - 08:50 PM' timestamp='1275504610' post='470331']
[quote name='matias' date='02 June 2010 - 02:39 PM' timestamp='1275503989' post='470328']
[quote name='Venger' date='02 June 2010 - 04:54 PM' timestamp='1275490499' post='470289']
Trust me I can prove anything with "facts" even that the earth is flat if you really want me to.[/quote]
Go ahead Ray, give us a little example of how you can prove the Earth is flat with "facts". I am sure you can try and prove it with facts that can be shown to be unfounded and wrong, but as we will prove them so, you will have proven nothing but the opposite of what you set out to demonstrate. I am not being sarcastical. This will be an interesting exercise that may indeed prove me wrong. Please be as good as your word. I have set up a post for this purpose: [url="http://www.hookahforum.com/topic/38165-proving-the-earth-is-flat-with-facts/page__view__findpost__p__470327"]http://www.hookahfor...post__p__470327[/url]
[/quote]

well In short that was my point. Just be careful to not believe everything you read.verify the sources.see if anyone with any credibility can back up the findings. Just because Rush Limbaugh says something does not make it true. That was my only point really.
Ray
[/quote]

I understand this was the purport of most of your post. But I felt you were somehow casting some suspicion of doubt on acolorado for using fact. My point was just to say that until his facts were shown to be wrong or doubtful, casting doubt just because of the use of facts was dangerous. No hard feelings, I hope.

[matias]

I now understand better the context of Ray's opening remarks. And, though I found the too general at the time, I now understand that it was me who misread them and kind of jumped the gun.

[Vladimir]

It's very simple, all these things are subjective and you disagree with the conclusion, so you disagree with the logic and thought process. Riddle me this, how can a liberal look me in the face and defend the fact that welfare programs success is based on how much money they hand out- and that is a good thing? How? Different thought processes. "Facts" are so often subjective that it is a very simple practice to pick and choose what "facts" one believes. In the world of politics, our facts are rarely as simple as 1+1=2.

[acolorado]

[quote name='Vladimir' date='04 June 2010 - 02:10 AM' timestamp='1275639048' post='470610']
It's very simple, all these things are subjective and you disagree with the conclusion, so you disagree with the logic and thought process. Riddle me this, how can a liberal look me in the face and defend the fact that welfare programs success is based on how much money they hand out- and that is a good thing? How? Different thought processes. "Facts" are so often subjective that it is a very simple practice to pick and choose what "facts" one believes. In the world of politics, our facts are rarely as simple as 1+1=2.
[/quote]

The answer is simple.

I can look you in the face and point to U.S. government data (facts - measures of outcomes in the real world using a scientific and statistically sound approach) which measures welfare's success by welfare to work outcomes, number of participants (increase or decline), outcomes of participants regarding employment, change in income levels of participants, results of programs regarding welfare reform, as well as budgetary figures.

[url="http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/ofa/data-reports/annualreport8/chapter13/chap13.htm"]My link[/url] - U.S. Dept of Health and Human services. Lots of studies on different measures of welfare's success using the various measurements described above.

Your claim that "welfare programs success is based on how much money they hand out" is false. Simply not true. Based on lack of research. Not credible, and also not sourced to anything - so what are you basing that claim on? I would wager you simply never did the research to find out if it's true or not.

As you can see it's easy to answer a question based on misinformation, and intended only to use false information to slander political beliefs you disagree with. A few minutes of homework can save you the embarrassment of making false claims.

Scientific measures of the real world and credible records of events are what are referred to as facts. You can find it in the dictionary. You may not agree, but that doesn't change the fact that facts are facts, regardless of an individual's opinion.

[Vladimir]

[quote name='acolorado' date='04 June 2010 - 05:02 PM' timestamp='1275696122' post='470662']
[quote name='Vladimir' date='04 June 2010 - 02:10 AM' timestamp='1275639048' post='470610']
It's very simple, all these things are subjective and you disagree with the conclusion, so you disagree with the logic and thought process. Riddle me this, how can a liberal look me in the face and defend the fact that welfare programs success is based on how much money they hand out- and that is a good thing? How? Different thought processes. "Facts" are so often subjective that it is a very simple practice to pick and choose what "facts" one believes. In the world of politics, our facts are rarely as simple as 1+1=2.
[/quote]

The answer is simple.

I can look you in the face and point to U.S. government data (facts - measures of outcomes in the real world using a scientific and statistically sound approach) which measures welfare's success by welfare to work outcomes, number of participants (increase or decline), outcomes of participants regarding employment, change in income levels of participants, results of programs regarding welfare reform, as well as budgetary figures.

[url="http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/ofa/data-reports/annualreport8/chapter13/chap13.htm"]My link[/url] - U.S. Dept of Health and Human services. Lots of studies on different measures of welfare's success using the various measurements described above.

...

[/quote]


And I can point to New Zealand, where you clearly did not do your homework. See, New Zealand switched their outlook, that handing out [i]more[/i] welfare was not a sign of success, [i]if anything it was a sign of rising dependence and poverty[/i]. Instead they put money into job training and other programs which overall significantly cut the need for welfare.


Proving my point, that we [b]both[/b] have historical/scientific evidence to back two [b]completely[/b] different theories and practices. Edited June 5, 2010 by Vladimir

[acolorado]

[quote name='Vladimir' date='05 June 2010 - 02:26 AM' timestamp='1275726408' post='470704']
[quote name='acolorado' date='04 June 2010 - 05:02 PM' timestamp='1275696122' post='470662']
[quote name='Vladimir' date='04 June 2010 - 02:10 AM' timestamp='1275639048' post='470610']
It's very simple, all these things are subjective and you disagree with the conclusion, so you disagree with the logic and thought process. Riddle me this, how can a liberal look me in the face and defend the fact that welfare programs success is based on how much money they hand out- and that is a good thing? How? Different thought processes. "Facts" are so often subjective that it is a very simple practice to pick and choose what "facts" one believes. In the world of politics, our facts are rarely as simple as 1+1=2.
[/quote]

The answer is simple.

I can look you in the face and point to U.S. government data (facts - measures of outcomes in the real world using a scientific and statistically sound approach) which measures welfare's success by welfare to work outcomes, number of participants (increase or decline), outcomes of participants regarding employment, change in income levels of participants, results of programs regarding welfare reform, as well as budgetary figures.

[url="http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/ofa/data-reports/annualreport8/chapter13/chap13.htm"]My link[/url] - U.S. Dept of Health and Human services. Lots of studies on different measures of welfare's success using the various measurements described above.

...

[/quote]


And I can point to New Zealand, where you clearly did not do your homework. See, New Zealand switched their outlook, that handing out [i]more[/i] welfare was not a sign of success, [i]if anything it was a sign of rising dependence and poverty[/i]. Instead they put money into job training and other programs which overall significantly cut the need for welfare.


Proving my point, that we [b]both[/b] have historical/scientific evidence to back two [b]completely[/b] different theories and practices.
[/quote]

Dude, God Bless, but I don't think you even bothered to read my post and check my link.

The U.S. uses job training as part of their welfare approach. It's called the welfare to work program, which I mention in my post above, and on which there is extensive information in the link I provide. The U.S. obviously agrees with New Zealand that it's an important part of getting people off of welfare, and I agree. How is that a completely different view from yours? That does not make sense.

You still insist on insinuating - incorrectly - that handing out more welfare is considered the primary measure of success in the U.S. - this is how your post reads to me - and still do not provided any evidence that it is. You seemed to simply ignore the information I provided.

I guess that proves my point that when you provide accurate information, sometimes people simply ignore it.

[TheScotsman]

Government agencies are one of the least reliable sources I can think of. I don't put any stock in their numbers, we can list so many ties they were wrong, biased, or just plain lies. HHS has a vested interest in making HHS look like an effective, necessary organization. More examples of BS-afied gov't numbers? Healthcare cost-without the "dr. fix", and recently, Friday's bs-afied jobs report.


Some stats on the effectiveness?

The Maryland NAACP recently concluded that "the ready access to a lifetime of welfare and free social service programs is a major contributory factor to the crime problems we face today." Welfare contributes to crime by destroying the family structure and breaking down the bonds of community. Moreover, it contributes to the social marginalization of young black men by making them irrelevant to the family. Their role has been supplanted by the welfare check. [url="http://www.cato.org/testimony/ct-ta3-9.html"]-poached from a CATO testimony to congress[/url]

Welfare has been statistically proven to have a strong correlation to [url="http://www.welfareacademy.org/pubs/welfare/testimony-0395.shtml"]unwed births[/url], and the family structure being an [url="http://www.marriagedebate.com/pdf/imapp.crimefamstructure.pdf"]important factor in crime[/url] statistics. Over 86% of the peer-reviewed studies have demonstrated a very strong connection between teen violent crime, and children born to unwed/teen mothers.
More- [url="http://www.heritage.org/Research/Lecture/HL401nbsp-Crime-Poverty-and-the-Family"]http://www.heritage....-and-the-Family[/url]

Welfare enables, and encourages single, young mothers to have children they are not able to properly provide for, nor raise properly-
The Mothers drop out of school, or do not continue past HS, never able to live up to their own potential- add frustration -take more self worth away-
In 10-15 years, teen crime goes out of control in the area-
The businesses leave the area, taking jobs with them-
The poverty gets worse & self respect goes to nothing- Only income is a gov't check from an agency that encourages more OWL births-
add more welfare, and continue the loop-

Examples? Inner city Detroit, East St Louis, the list could go on, but the evidence is far more convincing than a truck load of reports by gov't agencies who are justifying their own existence.

Furthermore, we are running out of other peoples money to hand out to non-productive people. when the economy added 10 gov't jobs (mostly temp) for every 1 private sector job there is no one to pay for freebies any more. The system is no longer sustainable. We are operating in an environment where there are only 4 private jobs for every 1 public check resulting from employment. Add in the welfare and it is obvious there is a crash that is unavoidable. Ever wonder what will happen that day there is no free money to hand out anymore? - look at Greece, many times over.

Welfare was brought to us by the same progressives that brought segregation, eugenics, concentration camps in the USA, the great depression, involvement in WW1, WW2, prohibition (arguably resulting in one of the most crime-ridden times in our history) and last, but not least, the raw, er, I mean "new" deal.

[Vladimir]

[quote name='acolorado' date='05 June 2010 - 06:39 AM' timestamp='1275745165' post='470721']
[quote name='Vladimir' date='05 June 2010 - 02:26 AM' timestamp='1275726408' post='470704']
[quote name='acolorado' date='04 June 2010 - 05:02 PM' timestamp='1275696122' post='470662']
[quote name='Vladimir' date='04 June 2010 - 02:10 AM' timestamp='1275639048' post='470610']
It's very simple, all these things are subjective and you disagree with the conclusion, so you disagree with the logic and thought process. Riddle me this, how can a liberal look me in the face and defend the fact that welfare programs success is based on how much money they hand out- and that is a good thing? How? Different thought processes. "Facts" are so often subjective that it is a very simple practice to pick and choose what "facts" one believes. In the world of politics, our facts are rarely as simple as 1+1=2.
[/quote]

The answer is simple.

I can look you in the face and point to U.S. government data (facts - measures of outcomes in the real world using a scientific and statistically sound approach) which measures welfare's success by welfare to work outcomes, number of participants (increase or decline), outcomes of participants regarding employment, change in income levels of participants, results of programs regarding welfare reform, as well as budgetary figures.

[url="http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/ofa/data-reports/annualreport8/chapter13/chap13.htm"]My link[/url] - U.S. Dept of Health and Human services. Lots of studies on different measures of welfare's success using the various measurements described above.

...

[/quote]


And I can point to New Zealand, where you clearly did not do your homework. See, New Zealand switched their outlook, that handing out [i]more[/i] welfare was not a sign of success, [i]if anything it was a sign of rising dependence and poverty[/i]. Instead they put money into job training and other programs which overall significantly cut the need for welfare.


Proving my point, that we [b]both[/b] have historical/scientific evidence to back two [b]completely[/b] different theories and practices.
[/quote]

Dude, God Bless, but I don't think you even bothered to read my post and check my link.

The U.S. uses job training as part of their welfare approach. It's called the welfare to work program, which I mention in my post above, and on which there is extensive information in the link I provide. The U.S. obviously agrees with New Zealand that it's an important part of getting people off of welfare, and I agree. How is that a completely different view from yours? That does not make sense.

You still insist on insinuating - incorrectly - that handing out more welfare is considered the primary measure of success in the U.S. - this is how your post reads to me - and still do not provided any evidence that it is. You seemed to simply ignore the information I provided.

I guess that proves my point that when you provide accurate information, sometimes people simply ignore it.
[/quote]

Actually you are incorrect. Departments that handle things like food stamps directly consider and report [i]more[/i] as an improvement in service. This is not talking about job training programs and such, I am talking about hand outs, not hand ups. I suspect your countless years working in government though has provided you with the experience in this matter.