If Conservatives Have Such Great Ideas....

[matias]

[quote name='TheScotsman' date='05 June 2010 - 04:57 PM' timestamp='1275749832' post='470736']

Welfare was brought to us by the same progressives that brought (...) the great depression, (...) prohibition (arguably resulting in one of the most crime-ridden times in our history)
[/quote]

the great depression: administrations from 1921 to 1933: Republican under Harding, Coolidge and Hoover.
prohibition (arguably resulting in one of the most crime-ridden times in our history): brought by the Democrat administration of President Wilson (1919), enforced by the previously quoted 3 Republican administrations and repealed by Roosevelt the year he got into power

Do I have to deduce from your post that you consider Harding, Coolidge and Hoover as dangerous "progressives" and Roosevelt as their opposite (some kind of conservative?)

[acolorado]

[quote name='Vladimir' date='05 June 2010 - 10:03 AM' timestamp='1275753814' post='470740']
[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.
[/quote]

At this point it's obvious you haven't bothered to research the information I've provided - H.H.S. does handle "handouts" (such as TANF). You still haven't provided any proof of your own to back up your claims. I'm sorry my friend but I don't have any confidence at this point that you understand what you're talking about in the slightest.

I'm not going to respond to any more of your posts until you dig up something worth responding to.

[Vladimir]

[quote name='acolorado' date='05 June 2010 - 04:00 PM' timestamp='1275778857' post='470775']

At this point it's obvious you haven't bothered to research the information I've provided - H.H.S. does handle "handouts" (such as TANF). You still haven't provided any proof of your own to back up your claims. I'm sorry my friend but I don't have any confidence at this point that you understand what you're talking about in the slightest.

I'm not going to respond to any more of your posts until you dig up something worth responding to.
[/quote]


And we come full circle and you prove my entire point. Game over.

[acolorado]

[quote name='TheScotsman' date='05 June 2010 - 08:57 AM' timestamp='1275749832' post='470736']
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.
[/quote]

I actually agree that CH and fraudulent welfare is damaging and can and does lead to many of the outcomes you describe.

It's also the lesser of two evils. Just read "How the Other Half Lives" by Jacob Riis. [url="http://www.tenant.net/Community/riis/contents.html"]My link[/url] - It describes the problems we faced before welfare was enacted.

I highly doubt that it's the epidemic you seem to believe. In fact, the scenario you describe doesn't add up with the actual figures from the programs involved.

-Only 8% of unwed mothers on welfare are teens. Most are between 20 and 40.
-Most are white.
- Only 1.6 percent of the population is on welfare - not as bad as you make it sound.
-Over half are on welfare for less than 2 years.
-You can also see the "Welfare states" of Europe have far lower rates of teen pregnancy than we do. How can that be if welfare causes this problem?
[url="http://www.huppi.com/kangaroo/L-welfareblack.htm"]My link[/url] - just look for yourself, the article is referenced to further sources.

Now what would happen if tens of thousands of Americans, single mothers, their kids, teenagers, the disabled, and the unemployed wound up on the streets because the party you support eliminated welfare? What would they do for food? What would happen to crime rates then? I know the stock answer is private charity - but that is an unrealistic answer. It didn't work before welfare, and it wouldn't work now. Private charities simply never have and never will have the resources to solve problems that the government does.


As far as running out of money - I have often pointed out that most of our deficit and most of the debt was run up when Republicans controlled the House, the Senate, and the White House.
[url="http://thepoliticaldispatch.com/2008/05/30/why-do-republican-administrations-love-budget-deficits/"]My link[/url] - Republican deficits.
[url="http://www.cato.org/pubs/briefs/bp87.pdf"]My link[/url] - Even CATO couldn't ignore it.
[url="http://www.cbpp.org/cms/index.cfm?fa=view&id=3036"]My link[/url] - Why is over half our deficit coming from Bush? Hrmmmm.
[url="http://www.lafn.org/gvdc/Natl_Debt_Chart.html"]My link[/url] - a nice chart sourced form the Treasury Dept. on which parties ran up the debt and when.

Now answer this please, we spend nearly as much on defense as we do on all forms of social assistance. We spend as much on defense as the rest of the world combined. What has it gotten us? Still now WMD in Iraq obviously. Why aren't you screaming to cut defense funding too, if you really are fiscally conservative?
[url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Federal_spendings.png"]My link[/url] - plenty of fat to cut from the military, without putting disabled people on the streets.

Check the above. Why is Obama responsible for only 10% of the deficit, and G.W. Bush is responsible for 53% ? That doesn't fit with the story you would have us believe at all. As long as we stop voting for Republicans and their insane spending sprees, we can begin to pay down the trillions in debt they've saddled us with.

It will require cutting some programs and raising taxes, but we can do it as long as we have some clear heads in charge. I hope the Republicans didn't really think that the money they were borrowing on behalf of all of us was growing on trees - of course we will have to raise taxes to pay for it.

On your claims about the many things you think progressives were responsible for. Conservative southerners enacted Segregation. Republican Presidents and their policies, as matias points out, led us straight down the tubes into the Great Depression, just like this Great Recession. Prohibition was the work of religious conservatives.

I understand that conservatives want to rewrite history to cover up their many mistakes, and try to take credit for what the Democrats historically accomplished, but that just doesn't sound like the responsibility and accountability they always claim to love. Of course progressives have made many mistakes also, but the New Deal, Social Security, Medicare, and now HCR are some of the best things that have ever happened in this country.

And let's face it, you will be cashing your S.S. check and using Medicare just like everyone else.

To finish up - I much prefer government sources for 3 reasons.

1. They are legally bound to accurately report budgetary costs and administrative figures (including statistics on the programs they run). Private think tanks like CATO and Heritage are not - so they have no reason not to fudge the numbers and mislead - which they often do, as do several dishonest liberal think tanks.

2. They have publicly accountable oversight. If the oversight is in question any member of the House or Senate can request and investigation. Again, the conservative think tanks you refer to have no oversight, and openly work for partisan outcomes.

3. They have the best sources of info, since they administer the programs, have the original documents, and have dedicated staff to collate that information. Where do you think CATO and Heritage are getting most of their info?

I personally trust the government. More so when the Dems are in charge, true, since they tend not to torture people, listen to my phone calls illegally, tell me fairy tales about WMD in Iraq, or run up spending and try to pretend it was someone else. Edited June 6, 2010 by acolorado

[Vladimir]

Has anyone noticed the OP claimed to have always considered himself a moderate, and then everything he sees clearly paints him as a pretty staunch partisan. Not to say there is anything wrong with that... but he was obviously trying to hide behind a label that he saw as more "acceptable". Nothing worse than a sheep in wolf's clothing. Come out and tell the truth man. You are a democrat liberal, there's nothing wrong with it. If you are ashamed that is a bummer.

[matias]

Any system implies ways and opportunities to abuse it as well as undesirable side-effects. Welfare is no exception. Corporations use and abuse the system in many ways too but somehow I rarely see people from the conservative side of the fence denounce that (rarely doesn't mean never). One such example of abuse and pilferring the nation's collective wealth is the militaro-industrial complex. Again, we rarely see the great anti-public spending crusaders focus on this side of public spending. I believe welfare is abused in some ways and has some nasty side effects but that things would be much worse (socially of course, but also for the economy) if it did not exist. I think it would be far easier to curb abuse in military spending (without reducing the level of preparation and equipment of the military) than to eradicate abuse of welfare.

[quote name='acolorado' date='06 June 2010 - 02:41 AM' timestamp='1275784892' post='470787']
I personally trust the government. More so when the Dems are in charge, true, since they tend not to torture people, listen to my phone calls illegally, tell me fairy tales about WMD in Iraq, or run up spending and try to pretend it was someone else.
[/quote]

I am not so sure about that. I think the Democrat track record is quite bad too: look at the involvement of Kennedy and Johnson administration in South America and Asia and Clinton's bombing of the Al-Shifa pharmaceutical plant in Sudan.

[acolorado]

[quote name='Vladimir' date='06 June 2010 - 12:33 AM' timestamp='1275806003' post='470811']
Has anyone noticed the OP claimed to have always considered himself a moderate, and then everything he sees clearly paints him as a pretty staunch partisan. Not to say there is anything wrong with that... but he was obviously trying to hide behind a label that he saw as more "acceptable". Nothing worse than a sheep in wolf's clothing. Come out and tell the truth man. You are a democrat liberal, there's nothing wrong with it. If you are ashamed that is a bummer.
[/quote]

Vlad the very first words of this thread are " I used to consider myself a moderate". I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and say maybe you just misread it.

Also, you still have not given us even one shred of evidence to support your "fact" that "welfare programs success is based on how much money they hand out". No program I've looked at is based on that measure, and you are obviously not prepared to provide anything to back it up with.

I think it's now obvious that you're just trolling. No person could make the arguments that you are making and not be trolling. Any other explanation would just reflect so badly on you at this point my friend, that I have to give you the benefit of the doubt and just not believe that you take them seriously either.

God Bless and please go troll somebody else bud, we have enough spirited debate here without that junk.

[acolorado]

On the other hand if you're not trolling - that would be the greatest most spectacular demonstration ever of why i have a hard time taking many conservatives seriously.

Man, I would love you forever. I might even name my first born after you, and tell him the story of Vlad and how he forever gave me the proof I craved that my convictions are correct and all is right in the world.

At this point I can just picture Scotty and the Venger reading you're posts and praying "Please, please, please be a troll".

But sadly we know that you are just joking around. Pity really - Vlad could be a good name for a kid.

[acolorado]

[quote name='matias' date='06 June 2010 - 01:37 AM' timestamp='1275809862' post='470815']
Any system implies ways and opportunities to abuse it as well as undesirable side-effects. Welfare is no exception. Corporations use and abuse the system in many ways too but somehow I rarely see people from the conservative side of the fence denounce that (rarely doesn't mean never). One such example of abuse and pilferring the nation's collective wealth is the militaro-industrial complex. Again, we rarely see the great anti-public spending crusaders focus on this side of public spending. I believe welfare is abused in some ways and has some nasty side effects but that things would be much worse (socially of course, but also for the economy) if it did not exist. I think it would be far easier to curb abuse in military spending (without reducing the level of preparation and equipment of the military) than to eradicate abuse of welfare.

[quote name='acolorado' date='06 June 2010 - 02:41 AM' timestamp='1275784892' post='470787']
I personally trust the government. More so when the Dems are in charge, true, since they tend not to torture people, listen to my phone calls illegally, tell me fairy tales about WMD in Iraq, or run up spending and try to pretend it was someone else.
[/quote]

I am not so sure about that. I think the Democrat track record is quite bad too: look at the involvement of Kennedy and Johnson administration in South America and Asia and Clinton's bombing of the Al-Shifa pharmaceutical plant in Sudan.
[/quote]

I don't know about the last part bud . I think about the thought process that went into getting us into Vietnam, mostly prepped by Henry K., and compare that to the thought process that got us into Iraq, mostly prepped by Donald R., and I feel like I'm on pretty solid ground XD. Why didn't we have a Phase IV (occupation plan) for Iraq anyway? You would think that would be in the job description for Sec. of Defense. It was probably replaced with "must be a people person" in the ad.

Plus there is "We do not torture" or "Saddam has reconstituted nuclear weapons, no question" and "If we cut taxes the government will take in more revenue" or "I am not a crook" and "He (our family values Governor) is hiking the Appalachian trail" plus "I just have a wide stance" or "Death Panels" and "Keep the government out of my Medicare" or "Obama is a Muslim" and "Health Care is Communism" or "this 1.3 trillion dollar deficit magically appeared the day Obama took office, and no the 260 billion surplus Bush inherited was all a lie" and "the skin on those kids you painted is too dark, even if they are kids who go to our school" and "Saddam was behind 911" or "Obama is going to round up all the Republicans and put them in FEMA camps" or "the Barack the Magic Negro song was harmless fun and why can't you take a joke" or "When I called her a F*****G R*****d I was just joking - I'm not a racist. But we shouldn't elect her because we're at war with those countries (Haley's family is from India - this was just recently in the news)" and "Iraq will last 6 months tops" or "All those wiretaps were legal" and "You're threatening to vote against funding the troops - why do you hate America? (which of course the Republicans are now threatening to do)" or ... dang this could go on forever... "It's un-American to criticize the sitting President during a time of war" and "I wanted to make sure I was out of the path of danger (Bush's quote on why he stayed so long in Kansas on 911" and "We shouldn't be providing free health care to the 911 cleanup workers, next we'll be giving free benefits to veterans (ok - that was from the Onion - but I bet you wouldn't be able to tell if I didn't point it out hehe)" plus "AIDS is just a gay plague" or "Just because I was once a member of the Klan does not mean I'm a racist (David Duke)" or "Bush was chosen by Jesus (but the Dems all think Obama is the Messiah)" and "It was all Ollie North's fault" plus "I never called myself a Maverick (McCain)" or "Obama is the racist (I have yet to figured that one out)" and "He can't give a great speech without a teleprompter (I guess except for all the times I've watched him give a great speech without a teleprompter)" or "We're the party of fiscal responsibility" cut to "Deficits don't matter (Dick Cheney)" and "I think she's completely qualified to be the Vice President" or "The many supporters of the Tea Party who are on welfare or disability yet want government to stop giving handouts" and...

If I didn't have to light some more coals I could keep em coming .

Sure, the Dems have plenty of their own, but - when I do my fact checking I usually find they're telling the truth, and for the last ten years that just isn't often the case with their opponents. I always recommend going to Politifact - looking up their "Pants on Fire" list - and comparing how many Republicans have made it versus how many Democrats.

Perhaps I am biased - but I happen to think it's a bias based on the homework I do, and grounded on fairly solid evidence. I expect someday that will change, and I will follow the facts.

If you disagree, I'm glad to have someone to debate, and I hope you're having as sweet a smoke as I am tonight .

[Vladimir]

[quote name='acolorado' date='06 June 2010 - 02:15 AM' timestamp='1275815725' post='470823']
[quote name='Vladimir' date='06 June 2010 - 12:33 AM' timestamp='1275806003' post='470811']
Has anyone noticed the OP claimed to have always considered himself a moderate, and then everything he sees clearly paints him as a pretty staunch partisan. Not to say there is anything wrong with that... but he was obviously trying to hide behind a label that he saw as more "acceptable". Nothing worse than a sheep in wolf's clothing. Come out and tell the truth man. You are a democrat liberal, there's nothing wrong with it. If you are ashamed that is a bummer.
[/quote]

Vlad the very first words of this thread are " I used to consider myself a moderate". I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and say maybe you just misread it.[/quote]

Yes, but this is sort of like when Obama claimed to be a moderate... you can say it all you want, but what counts is the ideology you spout, and it in no way lines up with moderate political ideology. That being said, I have to admit it is [i]possible[/i] a few years ago you were a moderate who could swing republican or democrat, but I find that incredibly unlikely and you either say that because it has a natural "enlightened" smell about it, or more likely because you used to [u]think[/u] you were a moderate... and then when you actually started thinking about politics you decided you were not at all. No one really goes from a [i]true[/i] moderate position to one like you [u]or me[/u] in any reasonable amount of time.

[quote]Also, you still have not given us even one shred of evidence to support your "fact" that "welfare programs success is based on how much money they hand out". No program I've looked at is based on that measure, and you are obviously not prepared to provide anything to back it up with.[/quote]

They frequently base the need for more funding based on how much they handed out the previous year, not on how many people got "back on their feet". Keep in mind this was back when the economy was good and welfare was not increasing due to rapidly rising unemployment.

[acolorado]

[quote name='Vladimir' date='06 June 2010 - 07:14 PM' timestamp='1275873292' post='470898']
[quote name='acolorado' date='06 June 2010 - 02:15 AM' timestamp='1275815725' post='470823']
[quote name='Vladimir' date='06 June 2010 - 12:33 AM' timestamp='1275806003' post='470811']
Has anyone noticed the OP claimed to have always considered himself a moderate, and then everything he sees clearly paints him as a pretty staunch partisan. Not to say there is anything wrong with that... but he was obviously trying to hide behind a label that he saw as more "acceptable". Nothing worse than a sheep in wolf's clothing. Come out and tell the truth man. You are a democrat liberal, there's nothing wrong with it. If you are ashamed that is a bummer.
[/quote]

Vlad the very first words of this thread are " I used to consider myself a moderate". I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and say maybe you just misread it.[/quote]

Yes, but this is sort of like when Obama claimed to be a moderate... you can say it all you want, but what counts is the ideology you spout, and it in no way lines up with moderate political ideology. That being said, I have to admit it is [i]possible[/i] a few years ago you were a moderate who could swing republican or democrat, but I find that incredibly unlikely and you either say that because it has a natural "enlightened" smell about it, or more likely because you used to [u]think[/u] you were a moderate... and then when you actually started thinking about politics you decided you were not at all. No one really goes from a [i]true[/i] moderate position to one like you [u]or me[/u] in any reasonable amount of time.

[quote]Also, you still have not given us even one shred of evidence to support your "fact" that "welfare programs success is based on how much money they hand out". No program I've looked at is based on that measure, and you are obviously not prepared to provide anything to back it up with.[/quote]

They frequently base the need for more funding based on how much they handed out the previous year, not on how many people got "back on their feet". Keep in mind this was back when the economy was good and welfare was not increasing due to rapidly rising unemployment.




[/quote]

You are my favorite person ever.

You don't know the first thing about me or my past.

You may have a difficult time understanding that when the policies enacted by the Republican party failed this country miserably, leading us into the worst economic downturn since the great depression, getting us stuck in two endless wars, and spending trillions we didn't need to, a great many people decided that the Democrats - who have been far more honest and competent than the R's were on all accounts in the opinion of many - are a much better choice.

Rather than trying to insinuate that I'm being dishonest here -which you are - perhaps you would take a moment to remember that not everyone will uncritically support failure. Some people will actually decide to try something different, and when it gives better results, they'll stick with it.

Many of the Republican positions which I used to support sounded great but just didn't work out. Tax cuts don't stimulate the economy - they just lead to budget crises. Having fewer gun restrictions doesn't reduce crime - it just turns what could have been assaults into murders. High levels of military spending don't make us safer - it only creates the incentive to get involved in unnecessary and expensive wars. Fiscal responsibility is something I believe in - which is why I don't support Republicans anymore - they don't practice it.

The ideas which used to sound terrific to me and which I supported just never produced the results which conservatives claimed they would. So rather than blindly continue to support those obvious failures - I did what any rational and thinking human being will - I admitted to myself that they didn't work and started looking for someone with better ideas.

It was easy to find them too.

To give you an analogy. If I buy a car from Ford and one month later it's broken down 5 times, I don't need 5 years to decide Ford is not the right place to buy a car from. I go buy another car, and when it doesn't break down - I love that company.

Now if it takes you longer to figure out that something is not working, and not worth supporting, that is not my problem - that is yours. If years of supporting something which doesn't work is "a reasonable amount of time" in your mind before you start to look for something better - well I'll just say I'm glad I don't do it that way.

Secondly your argument on welfare has gone from "the success of welfare is based on how much money they hand out" to "the need for more funding is based on how much they handed out the previous year". Measures of success and the need for more funding are two completely different measures in a business or in government. I hope you're not attempting to claim that they are equivalent - that would just be ridiculous and indicate that you are either very confused about how public programs (and private programs) work, or are simply being disingenuous.

Now if you had started with the claim you change to in your last post we could have had a different conversation, but it looks to me like you are just trying to walk back a talking point that you're finally starting to realize just wasn't true.

And to finish - Obama is a moderate in many respect - I know, because myself and many others wish he were more liberal.

Did you know that Obama fully supports the 2nd Amendment and has said so publicly? Do you know he reduced the deficit by 300 billion since last year, and has pledged to focus on deficit reduction in the next session of congress? Did you know he upholds Bush's program for indefinite detention (quite wrongly i believe). Do you know he has agreed publicly with many of the same positions on immigration that Republicans hold?

No - FOX news doesn't run those stories - so you probably didn't know any of that.

You and I are obviously not moderates, but I am just tired of hearing people complain that someone is not a moderate because they don't agree with them completely. Obama is quite certainly a moderate on many issues. Perhaps you just aren't seeing that because many of your views are (like many of mine) quite extreme.

[matias]

[quote name='acolorado' date='06 June 2010 - 12:18 PM' timestamp='1275819488' post='470830']
I don't know about the last part bud . I think about the thought process that went into getting us into Vietnam, mostly prepped by Henry K., and compare that to the thought process that got us into Iraq, mostly prepped by Donald R., and I feel like I'm on pretty solid ground XD. Why didn't we have a Phase IV (occupation plan) for Iraq anyway? You would think that would be in the job description for Sec. of Defense. It was probably replaced with "must be a people person" in the ad.

Plus there is "We do not torture" or "Saddam has reconstituted nuclear weapons, no question" and "If we cut taxes the government will take in more revenue" or "I am not a crook" and "He (our family values Governor) is hiking the Appalachian trail" plus "I just have a wide stance" or "Death Panels" and "Keep the government out of my Medicare" or "Obama is a Muslim" and "Health Care is Communism" or "this 1.3 trillion dollar deficit magically appeared the day Obama took office, and no the 260 billion surplus Bush inherited was all a lie" and "the skin on those kids you painted is too dark, even if they are kids who go to our school" and "Saddam was behind 911" or "Obama is going to round up all the Republicans and put them in FEMA camps" or "the Barack the Magic Negro song was harmless fun and why can't you take a joke" or "When I called her a F*****G R*****d I was just joking - I'm not a racist. But we shouldn't elect her because we're at war with those countries (Haley's family is from India - this was just recently in the news)" and "Iraq will last 6 months tops" or "All those wiretaps were legal" and "You're threatening to vote against funding the troops - why do you hate America? (which of course the Republicans are now threatening to do)" or ... dang this could go on forever... "It's un-American to criticize the sitting President during a time of war" and "I wanted to make sure I was out of the path of danger (Bush's quote on why he stayed so long in Kansas on 911" and "We shouldn't be providing free health care to the 911 cleanup workers, next we'll be giving free benefits to veterans (ok - that was from the Onion - but I bet you wouldn't be able to tell if I didn't point it out hehe)" plus "AIDS is just a gay plague" or "Just because I was once a member of the Klan does not mean I'm a racist (David Duke)" or "Bush was chosen by Jesus (but the Dems all think Obama is the Messiah)" and "It was all Ollie North's fault" plus "I never called myself a Maverick (McCain)" or "Obama is the racist (I have yet to figured that one out)" and "He can't give a great speech without a teleprompter (I guess except for all the times I've watched him give a great speech without a teleprompter)" or "We're the party of fiscal responsibility" cut to "Deficits don't matter (Dick Cheney)" and "I think she's completely qualified to be the Vice President" or "The many supporters of the Tea Party who are on welfare or disability yet want government to stop giving handouts" and...

If I didn't have to light some more coals I could keep em coming .

Sure, the Dems have plenty of their own, but - when I do my fact checking I usually find they're telling the truth, and for the last ten years that just isn't often the case with their opponents. I always recommend going to Politifact - looking up their "Pants on Fire" list - and comparing how many Republicans have made it versus how many Democrats.

Perhaps I am biased - but I happen to think it's a bias based on the homework I do, and grounded on fairly solid evidence. I expect someday that will change, and I will follow the facts.

If you disagree, I'm glad to have someone to debate, and I hope you're having as sweet a smoke as I am tonight .
[/quote]

I am happy the smoke is sweet. Let's see how my morning bowl behaves. Regarding your point about Democrats, I did not mean to say Republicans were better or tied with them. Rather, I wanted to say that though Republican administrations have a far worse track record, Democrats do not have such a great one. Kennedy's and Johnson's thought process on Vietnam was pretty flawed and involved a puppet government with a shady track record on human rights, a war that was bound to take a huge toll on the civilian population, faked incidents to justify US troops involvement ins SE Asia and harassment and surveillance tactics on war opponents at home. The use of phone tapping and surveillance for reasons other than immediate homeland security concerns was not much better during the Kennedy years. Bottom line: I wouldn't automatically feel safe from the abuses you mentioned just because the current administration is held by a Democrat Edited June 7, 2010 by matias

[Rani]

[quote name='matias' date='06 June 2010 - 11:44 PM' timestamp='1275893048' post='470934']

I am happy the smoke is sweet. Let's see how my morning bowl behaves. Regarding your point about Democrats, I did not mean to say Republicans were better or tied with them. Rather, I wanted to say that though Republican administrations have a far worse track record, Democrats do not have such a great one. Kennedy's and Johnson's thought process on Vietnam was pretty flawed and involved a puppet government with a shady track record on human rights, a war that was bound to take a huge toll on the civilian population, faked incidents to justify US troops involvement ins SE Asia and harassment and surveillance tactics on war opponents at home. The use of phone tapping and surveillance for reasons other than immediate homeland security concerns was not much better during the Kennedy years. Bottom line: I wouldn't automatically feel safe from the abuses you mentioned just because the current administration is held by a Democrat
[/quote]

I have always believed that a politician chooses to affiliate with whichever party is most likely to aid them in their career/elections. Ideals, agenda, whatever mean nothing. They go where the money will back them. I find no difference between Democrat and Republican incumbents. They may spout the party line, but behind closed doors it's all about themselves and what they can get away with.

What I do find surprising is when any woman associates herself with the Republican party. Who the heck wants to endorse an organization still weighed down by the "barefoot and pregnant" philosophy rampant in it's ranks? I expect some men to subscribe to the party on those grounds, I'm endlessly surprised when women do.

'Rani

[acolorado]

matias and Rani, you both make very good points.

One of the things I am really disappointed that the current administration has not done is really investigate and prosecute torture and indefinite detention policies. That they haven't done this has been a good eye opener for me. Politics trumped doing the right and legal thing.

I am always surprised that women support the more reactionary elements of the Republican platform as well. I think for many it is perhaps an outgrowth of a particular religious upbringing? I live in an area with a very heavy concentration of Evangelicals, and many of the women I've met from that denomination aren't happy in their lives or marriages, but both of those areas have been heavily influenced by what I would call extremely reactionary viewpoints found in their denomination. Several I've been good friends with have told me they are very confused about it, and it would make sense that their politics are similarly influenced by their upbringing.

[Vladimir]

[quote name='acolorado' date='06 June 2010 - 10:56 PM' timestamp='1275890165' post='470932']

Rather than trying to insinuate that I'm being dishonest here -which you are - perhaps you would take a moment to remember that not everyone will uncritically support failure. Some people will actually decide to try something different, and when it gives better results, they'll stick with it.
[/quote]

That's why Republicans will be back in control soon, and then democrats again, and then republicans. Don't pretend it is not true.

[quote]Many of the Republican positions which I used to support sounded great but just didn't work out. Tax cuts don't stimulate the economy - they just lead to budget crises. Having fewer gun restrictions doesn't reduce crime - it just turns what could have been assaults into murders. High levels of military spending don't make us safer - it only creates the incentive to get involved in unnecessary and expensive wars. Fiscal responsibility is something I believe in - which is why I don't support Republicans anymore - they don't practice it.

The ideas which used to sound terrific to me and which I supported just never produced the results which conservatives claimed they would. So rather than blindly continue to support those obvious failures - I did what any rational and thinking human being will - I admitted to myself that they didn't work and started looking for someone with better ideas.[/quote]

We have two problems here. The first of which is I have [u]never[/u] defended my positions on things like tax cuts, the Second Amendment, First Amendment, etc, etc on what [u]works[/u] best, it does not matter what [i]works best[/i], what matters is what is [u]right[/u]. All the things I mentioned, come down to liberty, and not "functionality."

The second problem is that you are flat out wrong. For a simple example,[font="Arial"][size=2] Guns are used 2.5 million times a year in self-defense- which equals about 6,850 times a day. Take the 30,000 deaths statistic and you get a result that firearms are used over 80 times as often to protect than kill. In fact, a high-school student is twice as likely to die playing football than by a gunshot wound.[/size][/font]

[quote]And to finish - Obama is a moderate in many respect - I know, because myself and many others wish he were more liberal.[/quote]

Yea and I am a moderate in many respects, it doesn't come close to making me a moderate.

[quote]Did you know that Obama fully supports the 2nd Amendment and has said so publicly? Do you know he reduced the deficit by 300 billion since last year, and has pledged to focus on deficit reduction in the next session of congress? Did you know he upholds Bush's program for indefinite detention (quite wrongly i believe). Do you know he has agreed publicly with many of the same positions on immigration that Republicans hold?[/quote]

You made a typo, you should have said "Did you know that Obama [u]says[/u] he fully supports the 2nd Amendment?" That is funny because his record as a senator is in complete contradiction with that, and his casual statements are also in complete contradiction to that (consider my a proud "clinger"). No one really expected to see any action against the Second Amendment until his second term, but quite frankly I think even that would be ridiculous of him since he knows he doesn't have a chance in the Supreme Court- then again, politicians have done crazier things.

[quote]No - FOX news doesn't run those stories - so you probably didn't know any of that.[/quote]

Oh yes the old liberal line, when in doubt bash Fox! Don't be so intimidated by them, it will all be okay.

[jezter6]

[quote name='acolorado' date='07 June 2010 - 12:56 AM' timestamp='1275890165' post='470932']

You may have a difficult time understanding that when the policies enacted by the Republican party failed this country miserably, leading us into the worst economic downturn since the great depression, getting us stuck in two endless wars, and spending trillions we didn't need to, a great many people decided that the Democrats - who have been far more honest and competent than the R's were on all accounts in the opinion of many - are a much better choice.
[/quote]
Do you really expect anyone on the other side of the debate to even bother with basic party rhetoric like that? I was hoping you had a legit opinion, but apparently I was incorrect in that assumption.

[quote name='acolorado' date='07 June 2010 - 12:56 AM' timestamp='1275890165' post='470932']

Rather than trying to insinuate that I'm being dishonest here -which you are - perhaps you would take a moment to remember that not everyone will uncritically support failure. Some people will actually decide to try something different, and when it gives better results, they'll stick with it.
[quote]
If the almighty Democratic party of the United States was oh-so-great, and your statement is true - we wouldn't have had a single Republican president since Kennedy. I'm guessing that one or both of your above statements is incorrect.

[quote name='acolorado' date='07 June 2010 - 12:56 AM' timestamp='1275890165' post='470932']

Many of the Republican positions which I used to support sounded great but just didn't work out. Tax cuts don't stimulate the economy - they just lead to budget crises.
[/quote]
Interesting, the JOINT Economic Committee of congress seems to disagree with you there.
http://www.house.gov/jec/fiscal/tx-grwth/reagtxct/reagtxct.htm

Under Reagan era tax cuts, government revenue actually increased over time, in spite of a recession. And typical of Liberal Democratic plans, the "top 1%" got screwed in the starfish more and the rest of the citizens won out quite well. In the midst of a recession.


[quote name='acolorado' date='07 June 2010 - 12:56 AM' timestamp='1275890165' post='470932']

Having fewer gun restrictions doesn't reduce crime - it just turns what could have been assaults into murders.
[/quote]
Talking points much? Where's your FACTS to back this one up?

A Harvard study in (IIRC) 2007 seems to think otherwise.
http://www.law.harvard.edu/students/orgs/jlpp/Vol30_No2_KatesMauseronline.pdf

Of course, since you got your "news" from Maddow, please link me to her talking points on the subject.

[quote name='acolorado' date='07 June 2010 - 12:56 AM' timestamp='1275890165' post='470932']
High levels of military spending don't make us safer - it only creates the incentive to get involved in unnecessary and expensive wars.
[/quote]
We'll have to see, but as far as I can tell, we were in more wars 1940-1980 than we have been 1981-present. Now, there's a 10 year shortage there, so we'll have to see what comes of the next decade.

[quote name='acolorado' date='07 June 2010 - 12:56 AM' timestamp='1275890165' post='470932']

Fiscal responsibility is something I believe in - which is why I don't support Republicans anymore - they don't practice it.
[/quote]
Nobody in current government practices it. You think your precious Dems haven't spent the crap out of the last 2 years? PUHLEASE.

I like how tax cuts don't work, but spending TRILLIONS does. Both cases result in the federal government having less money, one's just pushed by the Dems, so you're drinking the kool-aid like you're in the Sahara...

[quote name='acolorado' date='07 June 2010 - 12:56 AM' timestamp='1275890165' post='470932']

The ideas which used to sound terrific to me and which I supported just never produced the results which conservatives claimed they would. So rather than blindly continue to support those obvious failures - I did what any rational and thinking human being will - I admitted to myself that they didn't work and started looking for someone with better ideas.
[/quote]
At least I'll give you credit for trying to do something about it. Too bad you went right to the SAME turdballs that got us into this mess...the big 2 parties that think money is printed by the government or something. Oh wait, it is...

[quote name='acolorado' date='07 June 2010 - 12:56 AM' timestamp='1275890165' post='470932']
It was easy to find them too.
[/quote]
Wow. Just wow.

[quote name='acolorado' date='07 June 2010 - 12:56 AM' timestamp='1275890165' post='470932']
To give you an analogy. If I buy a car from Ford and one month later it's broken down 5 times, I don't need 5 years to decide Ford is not the right place to buy a car from. I go buy another car, and when it doesn't break down - I love that company.

Now if it takes you longer to figure out that something is not working, and not worth supporting, that is not my problem - that is yours. If years of supporting something which doesn't work is "a reasonable amount of time" in your mind before you start to look for something better - well I'll just say I'm glad I don't do it that way.[/quote]

Luckily most people have figured out in 2 years what it took many to figure out in 8.

However, what you've really done is traded your broken down Ford for a Mazda...not realizing that Ford IS Mazda and it's the same broken crap, just with a Japanese name that is equated with higher quality...even it it's the same garbage.

[quote name='acolorado' date='07 June 2010 - 12:56 AM' timestamp='1275890165' post='470932']

Do you know he reduced the deficit by 300 billion since last year, and has pledged to focus on deficit reduction in the next session of congress? [/quote]

That's like raising the price of something by 100% and then having a 50% off sale...

[Rani]

[quote name='acolorado' date='07 June 2010 - 06:17 PM' timestamp='1275959868' post='471009']
matias and Rani, you both make very good points.

One of the things I am really disappointed that the current administration has not done is really investigate and prosecute torture and indefinite detention policies. That they haven't done this has been a good eye opener for me. Politics trumped doing the right and legal thing.

I am always surprised that women support the more reactionary elements of the Republican platform as well. I think for many it is perhaps an outgrowth of a particular religious upbringing? I live in an area with a very heavy concentration of Evangelicals, and many of the women I've met from that denomination aren't happy in their lives or marriages, but both of those areas have been heavily influenced by what I would call extremely reactionary viewpoints found in their denomination. Several I've been good friends with have told me they are very confused about it, and it would make sense that their politics are similarly influenced by their upbringing.
[/quote]

Have you ever noticed Sarah Palin's hair? Exactly like the hair of every woman in those Evangelical churches all across the South. They branded me a witch for my short punky hair long before I told them I prefer to work for the other side. No sense of humor those people either, let me tell ya.

'Rani

[acolorado]

[quote name='jezter6' date='07 June 2010 - 10:35 PM' timestamp='1275971736' post='471028']
[quote name='acolorado' date='07 June 2010 - 12:56 AM' timestamp='1275890165' post='470932']
You may have a difficult time understanding that when the policies enacted by the Republican party failed this country miserably, leading us into the worst economic downturn since the great depression, getting us stuck in two endless wars, and spending trillions we didn't need to, a great many people decided that the Democrats - who have been far more honest and competent than the R's were on all accounts in the opinion of many - are a much better choice.
[/quote]
Do you really expect anyone on the other side of the debate to even bother with basic party rhetoric like that? I was hoping you had a legit opinion, but apparently I was incorrect in that assumption.

[quote name='acolorado' date='07 June 2010 - 12:56 AM' timestamp='1275890165' post='470932']
Rather than trying to insinuate that I'm being dishonest here -which you are - perhaps you would take a moment to remember that not everyone will uncritically support failure. Some people will actually decide to try something different, and when it gives better results, they'll stick with it.
[quote]
If the almighty Democratic party of the United States was oh-so-great, and your statement is true - we wouldn't have had a single Republican president since Kennedy. I'm guessing that one or both of your above statements is incorrect.

[quote name='acolorado' date='07 June 2010 - 12:56 AM' timestamp='1275890165' post='470932']
Many of the Republican positions which I used to support sounded great but just didn't work out. Tax cuts don't stimulate the economy - they just lead to budget crises.
[/quote]
Interesting, the JOINT Economic Committee of congress seems to disagree with you there.
[url="http://www.house.gov/jec/fiscal/tx-grwth/reagtxct/reagtxct.htm"]http://www.house.gov...ct/reagtxct.htm[/url]

Under Reagan era tax cuts, government revenue actually increased over time, in spite of a recession. And typical of Liberal Democratic plans, the "top 1%" got screwed in the starfish more and the rest of the citizens won out quite well. In the midst of a recession.


[quote name='acolorado' date='07 June 2010 - 12:56 AM' timestamp='1275890165' post='470932']
Having fewer gun restrictions doesn't reduce crime - it just turns what could have been assaults into murders.
[/quote]
Talking points much? Where's your FACTS to back this one up?

A Harvard study in (IIRC) 2007 seems to think otherwise.
[url="http://www.law.harvard.edu/students/orgs/jlpp/Vol30_No2_KatesMauseronline.pdf"]http://www.law.harva...auseronline.pdf[/url]

Of course, since you got your "news" from Maddow, please link me to her talking points on the subject.

[quote name='acolorado' date='07 June 2010 - 12:56 AM' timestamp='1275890165' post='470932']
High levels of military spending don't make us safer - it only creates the incentive to get involved in unnecessary and expensive wars.
[/quote]
We'll have to see, but as far as I can tell, we were in more wars 1940-1980 than we have been 1981-present. Now, there's a 10 year shortage there, so we'll have to see what comes of the next decade.

[quote name='acolorado' date='07 June 2010 - 12:56 AM' timestamp='1275890165' post='470932']
Fiscal responsibility is something I believe in - which is why I don't support Republicans anymore - they don't practice it.
[/quote]
Nobody in current government practices it. You think your precious Dems haven't spent the crap out of the last 2 years? PUHLEASE.

I like how tax cuts don't work, but spending TRILLIONS does. Both cases result in the federal government having less money, one's just pushed by the Dems, so you're drinking the kool-aid like you're in the Sahara...

[quote name='acolorado' date='07 June 2010 - 12:56 AM' timestamp='1275890165' post='470932']
The ideas which used to sound terrific to me and which I supported just never produced the results which conservatives claimed they would. So rather than blindly continue to support those obvious failures - I did what any rational and thinking human being will - I admitted to myself that they didn't work and started looking for someone with better ideas.
[/quote]
At least I'll give you credit for trying to do something about it. Too bad you went right to the SAME turdballs that got us into this mess...the big 2 parties that think money is printed by the government or something. Oh wait, it is...

[quote name='acolorado' date='07 June 2010 - 12:56 AM' timestamp='1275890165' post='470932']
It was easy to find them too.
[/quote]
Wow. Just wow.

[quote name='acolorado' date='07 June 2010 - 12:56 AM' timestamp='1275890165' post='470932']
To give you an analogy. If I buy a car from Ford and one month later it's broken down 5 times, I don't need 5 years to decide Ford is not the right place to buy a car from. I go buy another car, and when it doesn't break down - I love that company.

Now if it takes you longer to figure out that something is not working, and not worth supporting, that is not my problem - that is yours. If years of supporting something which doesn't work is "a reasonable amount of time" in your mind before you start to look for something better - well I'll just say I'm glad I don't do it that way.[/quote]

Luckily most people have figured out in 2 years what it took many to figure out in 8.

However, what you've really done is traded your broken down Ford for a Mazda...not realizing that Ford IS Mazda and it's the same broken crap, just with a Japanese name that is equated with higher quality...even it it's the same garbage.

[quote name='acolorado' date='07 June 2010 - 12:56 AM' timestamp='1275890165' post='470932']
Do you know he reduced the deficit by 300 billion since last year, and has pledged to focus on deficit reduction in the next session of congress? [/quote]

That's like raising the price of something by 100% and then having a 50% off sale...
[/quote]

Jetzer - you have some good arguments in here - I appreciate the sourcing. We can have a real discussion.

-As regards the Republican position on tax cuts - I refer to the problem that they don't have any other position. It is their one size fits all answer to every economic problem.

You are correct, as the report you cite also points out, that under the Laffer curve model ([url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laffer_curve"]http://en.wikipedia....ki/Laffer_curve[/url]) cutting tax rates, when tax rates are [i]exceedingly high[/i] - can stimulate both government revenue and economic performance.

The problem is - we are at and have been at historically low tax rates for almost 20 years ([url="http://http://www.visualizingeconomics.com/2007/11/03/nytimes-historical-tax-rates-by-income-group/"]My link)[/url]. Studies show that the tax cuts under these circumstances have 2 results.
1. Less government revenue - [url="http://www.cbpp.org/cms/?fa=view&id=119"]My link[/url]
2. Very little if any economic stimulus - [url="http://www.cbpp.org/cms/index.cfm?fa=view&id=2116"]My link[/url]

So the claim that tax cuts will provide the government with higher revenue and stimulate the economy only works under specific circumstances - circumstances which have not applied since the 1980's, and following those policies today would actually produce quite opposite results (as they did under Bush, as you can see in my linked info).

- On my claim regarding gun control.

The problem I ran into here popped up when I checked the sources the study refers to. What I found were that the studies available to refer to DO NOT SAY WHAT THE HARVARD AUTHOR CLAIMS THEY SAY.

- The CDC study referred to in the paper is easy to look up. The author claims of the study "It failed to identify any gun control that had reduced violent crime, suicide, or gun accidents.15 The same conclusion was reached in 2003 by the U.S. Centers for Disease Control's review of thenextant
studies.16" page 654 [url="http://www.law.harvard.edu/students/orgs/jlpp/Vol30_No2_KatesMauseronline.pdf"]My link[/url]

The study actually did not make a claim either way "Because none of the firearm laws reviewed was found to have sufficient evidence to draw conclusions regarding their effectiveness", and " A finding of insufficient evidence to determine effectiveness should not be interpreted as evidence of ineffectiveness but rather as an indicator that additional research is needed before an intervention can be evaluated for its effectiveness." page 14 [url="http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/pdf/rr/rr5214.pdf"]My link[/url]

- The National Research Council report does not even look at the effectiveness of gun - control laws on gun violence so far as I can see. So how exactly can it "fail to identify any gun control that" reduces crime if it didn't even study that? All it looks at are police efforts to reduce gun violence which does not include studies of gun control laws except those used in tougher sentencing. Hrmmmm.
[url="http://www.nap.edu/catalog.php?record_id=10881"]My linkhttp://www.nap.edu/catalog.php?record_id=10881[/url]

What it does say on page 54 is this "Review of these data (comparative rates of gun violence in different countries) indicate that while the United States does not have the highest rate of homicide or firearm-related homicide, it does have the highest rates for these among industrialized democracies. Homicide rates in the United States are two to four times higher than they are in countries that are economically and politically similar to it." Countries with strict gun control laws I probably don't need to point out.

That's about as clear a case as you can get that the author of the paper you refer to misconstrued the results of the CDC and NPA studies - claiming it supports their position when in fact it specifically says there was insufficient evidence to test that claim either way (it further states specifically how the studies reviewed fail in that regard, and in several cases that there was conflicting evidence which led to that outcome), or didn't even study that question.

The studies they I can find from the CDC follow.

- A study on children shows that in the U.S. fatality rates involving guns in suicide and homicide are much higher than in other countries with gun control. In fact they quantify the rate here as 3 to 1 for suicide and 6 to 1 for homicide. [url="http://www.cdc.gov/Mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/00046149.htm#00001168.gif"]My linkhttp://www.cdc.gov/Mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/00046149.htm#00001168.gif[/url]

And although this is obviously a site dedicated to one position - they link to many studies which are credible showing rates of gun ownership and gun deaths are related (which just makes sense) [url="http://www.gun-control-network.org/GF01.htm"]My link[/url].

The title of our thread is very pertinent here. Why would the author of the paper you cite misconstrue (i.e. lie) about what not one but two government reports say when trying to back up their position? Almost every time I dig into conservative arguments this or a similar type of dishonesty is what I find at the bottom.

- For the critique that government spending aimed at stimulus also results in less money for the government that is true. However there is lots of evidence that it works, which (see above) tax cuts don't.
My link - a great comparison (with references of course) between the effectiveness of tax cuts and spending.

- If there were a truly sane party on all issues that practiced fiscal responsibility and COULD GET ELECTED I would vote for them. Right now it's the choice between the big spenders (Dems) and the bigger spenders (R's), so I go with the lesser of two evils. Also in my mind the one's who aren't so hypocritical. Anyone of course, can vote libertarian or Green or Alaska Independent Party to their heart's content, but I really want my vote to matter.

-And on "That's like raising the price of something by 100% and then having a 50% off sale... "

I have linked countless times to the history of the deficit and which parties were responsible in my posts. When Bush took office we had a 260 billion surplus. When the R's lost control of the House and Senate it was over a 600 billion deficit. Those policies (Iraq, Afghanistan, medicare plan - D, tax cuts for the rich) stayed in effect though - and by the time Obama took office the deficit was 1.2 trillion. Easy to look up.

Yes the R's raised the deficit and now Obama is slowly getting us out of it. And yes they are still spending too much but, I like what they are spending it on. Many conservatives loved it when Bush and the R's spent, they just claimed that it was necessary or ignored it. I will be honest enough to say I would much rather spend a trillion on getting health care for needy Americans than spending a trillion on Iraqi's, or even worse - giving 2 trillion to the richest people in America. It is a good use for the money and something I am happy to pay for.

Thank you for posting references bud. I like a good discussion.

We had some problems (and I was a part of it too) here on name-calling recently - so please watch what you say (T**Balls). Just no need for it.

[acolorado]

The last link in my previous post wasn't working. It's not permitted - but it's a post by Paul Krugman with references at the NY Times.

And why the hell am i spending my time arguing and looking at danged reports from the NPA when I could be doing a million other things. We both know neither of us will change the other's mind on this.

I think I will go look up the latest Pornady and then play some WoW or watch a movie. Heck I might even take a good walk.

[Vladimir]

[quote name='acolorado' date='08 June 2010 - 10:50 PM' timestamp='1276062619' post='471180']
The last link in my previous post wasn't working. It's not permitted - but it's a post by Paul Krugman with references at the NY Times.

And why the hell am i spending my time arguing and looking at danged reports from the NPA when I could be doing a million other things. We both know neither of us will change the other's mind on this.

I think I will go look up the latest Pornady and then play some WoW or watch a movie. Heck I might even take a good walk.
[/quote]

It was the gun control facts that did it, was it not? They are pretty hard to argue with... if the liberals had something like that I would probably run away as well .

[acolorado]

[quote name='Vladimir' date='09 June 2010 - 02:55 AM' timestamp='1276073713' post='471192']
[quote name='acolorado' date='08 June 2010 - 10:50 PM' timestamp='1276062619' post='471180']
The last link in my previous post wasn't working. It's not permitted - but it's a post by Paul Krugman with references at the NY Times.

And why the hell am i spending my time arguing and looking at danged reports from the NPA when I could be doing a million other things. We both know neither of us will change the other's mind on this.

I think I will go look up the latest Pornady and then play some WoW or watch a movie. Heck I might even take a good walk.
[/quote]

It was the gun control facts that did it, was it not? They are pretty hard to argue with... if the liberals had something like that I would probably run away as well .
[/quote]

I'm not sure what you're getting at bud. If you look at the National Research study I refer to above - which surveys studies of defensive use of guns - they find that there aren't any reliable studies of defensive gun use. Some say guns are only used 100,000 times a year in self defense. One says 2.5 million. That's a pretty big spread there.

You couldn't even be bothered to link us to the study you use. If you don't take it seriously enough to do that, why would I?

I'm just not giving you much credence at this point. As I said before, if you can start to bring some information worth responding to into the debate, I'll give you some credit.

Until then - I have better uses of my time.

[Venger]

can't post all the links and many will be shot down because of the source of the opinion but google "shootings in gun free zones"
there are even some articles form people living in England and Australia.
Ray

[TheScotsman]

I needed some comedy tonight.

Did I just read nobummer was getting us out of a deficit?
that is pretty good comedy. He, and rest of the progressives should spend a load more money we don't have, and get us out of it even faster. He only has the deficit up to 10+% of GDP, I bet if he doubles it, by your definition, it will go down faster. Bernanke doesn't agree with you at all, by the way.


Anyone that thinks gun control works should be the first person to put a sign in their front yard saying there are no firearms in the house. Then, after the crooks come steal all your stuff, go to the library to use a computer, and come tell us all how well that worked out. The presence, or even the possibility of encountering an armed citizen will deter crooks. How about those Aussie crime stats pre vs. post ban. Even the libs have a hard time spinning them without just plain lying.

[acolorado]

[quote name='TheScotsman' date='09 June 2010 - 07:56 PM' timestamp='1276134966' post='471305']
I needed some comedy tonight.

Did I just read nobummer was getting us out of a deficit?
that is pretty good comedy. He, and rest of the progressives should spend a load more money we don't have, and get us out of it even faster. He only has the deficit up to 10+% of GDP, I bet if he doubles it, by your definition, it will go down faster. Bernanke doesn't agree with you at all, by the way.


Anyone that thinks gun control works should be the first person to put a sign in their front yard saying there are no firearms in the house. Then, after the crooks come steal all your stuff, go to the library to use a computer, and come tell us all how well that worked out. The presence, or even the possibility of encountering an armed citizen will deter crooks. How about those Aussie crime stats pre vs. post ban. Even the libs have a hard time spinning them without just plain lying.
[/quote]

Thank you Scotty. The best comedy is self-parody.

1. I've posted quite a few links to documents showing that the Republicans and their legislation are responsible for most of the deficit. 53% to be specific. At the peak after Obama took office, it was increased by an additional 10%, and is now falling.

If we don't have any money (a silly assertion) it is because the Republicans spent most of it, refused to hold themselves responsible, and now simply lie about it.

Repeating something which is not true does not make it true. You keep repeating something which is easy to show is not true. I love that you and others do this, it's the reason I started the thread, and the reason for the name.

For a dose of reality look here - [url="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/donnie-fowler/deficit-debt-the-republic_b_370716.html"]My link[/url]

I honestly believe no matter how much evidence piles up to the contrary - you will never acknowledge that for Republicans, fiscal responsibility is only an empty talking point. They never get around to actually PRACTICING it.

What do you call someone who can't practice what they preach? A Republican I guess .

2. I DID look up studies on the Australian gun laws at your suggestion.

- Firearms related deaths have dropped 47% in the last 10 years.
[url="http://www.aic.gov.au/publications/tandi2/tandi269t.html"][i]Trends and Issues in Crime and Criminal Justice No. 269: Firearm related deaths in Australia, 1991-2001[/i][/url]. [url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Australian_Institute_of_Criminology"]Australian Institute of Criminology[/url]. [url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Standard_Book_Number"]ISBN[/url] [url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:BookSources/0-642-53821-2;_ISSN_0817-8542"]0-642-53821-2; ISSN 0817-8542[/url]. [url="http://www.aic.gov.au/publications/tandi2/tandi269t.html"]http://www.aic.gov.au/publications/tandi2/tandi269t.html[/url].

- An interesting article in which the Federal Attorney of Australia calls out the NRA for using false statistics to make the claim you're repeating. In the same article, the director of the Australian Institute of Criminology also points out that homicides in Australia have decreased and rarely involve firearms.
[url="http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=15322"]http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=15322[/url]

Looks like the spin here is all yours bud.

[Vladimir]

Heres the problem with this argument, which largely sums up one of the major problems America is facing today. Your defense of the democrat party is based, not on morals or values, or statistical evidence... instead it is based on "how bad those republicans are." This is a problem for two reasons...

1- Your political affiliation is then based solely on blame, which is spawned by bitterness, which gets you nowhere, and further is fragile because it is not based on conviction.

2- I'm not a republican, so you can attack them all you want, I have no interest in defending them.