Republican vice president candidates
Quote: rdw4potusGo to Riverside or San Bernardino or Orange County and tell them that they're liberal and see what happens:-) I don't think WI is all that liberal (maybe the 15th or 20th most liberal state), but even if it was, Ryan's district is tremendously conservative and that's the only place he's ever won a race for anything.
And go to Hollywood or San Francisco and tell them they are conservative and see what happens. CA is a liberal state by anybody's standard. Liberal states have pockets of conservatives, conservative states have pockets of liberals. This does not change the fact of how the state liens.
FWIW I had a roommate from WI and he stated it is exceptionally liberal near Madison and more middle of the road in the rural areas. Madison is a large enough place to tip the entire state to the left on many issus, again according to him.
Quote:And, I'm not sure why you think that Liberals aren't intellectually curious. That's probably measurable. We could look at Liberal investigative journalists, or Liberal essayists, or Liberal academics...
Why do I think liberals are not intellectually curious? Well first there is their position on Global Warming which ends up as, "Ignore what you see and know, just listen to 'scientific consensus" forgetting that the "scientific cinsensus" was once that the earth was flat and "bleeding" a person was a good thing. Or the idea that if you raise tax rates you will not change economic behavior and cash will keep flowing in. Or the whole "Bush lied" nonsense where they do not understand how gathering intel works. The refusal to even consider creationism/intelligent design, saying species developed because of "gene mutations" but ignoring that most mutations would be bad or fatal, no they refuse to even consider it. Thinking gun laws save lives but ignoring the places with the toughest gun laws tend to have the most gun violence. Thinking that more money will solve any societal issue.
I could go on and on.
Quote: rxwineReagan, even when he blundered, as far as I can remember generally got the best of the moment. (pre-election too) in verbal sparring
Verbal sparring with Carter? In Aug? There wasn't any till
the debates. We're not even there yet.
Quote: kewljI was referring to getting to the point that your opponents stop actively running
Nice try, but thats NOT what you meant at all.
You thought he should have had it sown up
early because the winner always gets all the
delegates. Your statement makes no sense
otherwise. Why would the press declare him
the winner before he had enough delegates?
Thats just silly.
Quote: kewljYou seem to think you own this board and
insist on arguing every single topic with anyone
I do? Thats a little tough, I block the majority
of threads without posting in them at all. What
does irk me is when people act like they're an
authority on something by twisting and misrepresenting
the facts.
Quote: kewljIf it were as simple as you say, Romney would be ahead double digits in the polls. So far that hasn't happened. Yesterday and today is the largest lead President Obama has enjoyed this year at 4.6 percent, so it would seem that given the choice between a president who has underperformed and Mr Romney as the alternative, so far people have rejected the alternative. That could change, but I think it is a tough hill for Romney to climb, because there are some people that are judging him and disliking him for the wrong reasons, The Mormon issue and because he is rich, although they probably wouldn't admit these are the reasons.
So far Mr Romney has just stood and said, "the president has done a poor job, I can do better". And while that may be true, it doesn't seem to be enough. Maybe it should be. Maybe it would have been in a different era, even not long ago. But it isn't working in this election, with THIS alternative choice. He has to come up with a better reason to change minds of these folks who have already initially rejected him. I have no idea what that might be or if there even is such a thing that could do the trick. There are a couple more job reports due out before the election, but those numbers aren't going to change that much. Unemployment is going to be 8.2, 8.3, 8.4% range and that normally would be enough to doom an incumbant president, but it seems to have been factored in already. For unemployment numbers to have an effect they would have to jump dramatically, probably back to 9.0% these last 2 months and no body on either side expects that. In other words: Romney needs a game changer. So far he hasn't found it.
You took a whole lot of words to make my argument for me--the election is simple.
--Is President Obama worthy of a second term based on his performance? Yes or no? If no...then...
--Is Romney close enough to the kind of change I want to make based on President Obama's performance or not? Yes or no...
First question "yes" = vote for Obama
If you get to the second question and say "yes" = vote for Romney
Yes and no = sit out the election or hold your nose and vote for one or the other
If Romney/Ryan can put their case into words the electorate can grab hold of, they will win. If they just say "Obama messed up", they will lose.
Quote: kewljYou win, Bob. You know everything, .
Nope, but I know BS when I see it. Try
and get your info from sources other
than BSNBC and MoveOn.barf
Quote: s2dbakerIt'll be fun to quote Bob from these threads in November, after the election.
You mean after people go into the voting
booth and think, the last 4 years with Obama
have been the worst in the last 30 years?
And they vote accordingly?
It will be fun, you're right..
Indeed :)Quote: EvenBobYou mean after people go into the voting
booth and think, the last 4 years with Obama
have been the worst in the last 30 years?
And they vote accordingly?
It will be fun, you're right..
Quote: AZDuffmanThinking gun laws save lives but ignoring the places with the toughest gun laws tend to have the most gun violence.
You're going to have to cite some examples on this one. Here's a link to the Wikipedia page on homicides per capita to help you out. Here are my counter examples: It looks to me like China, Canada, and Western Europe (specifically England, France, Sweden, and Norway) all have much lower homicide rates than the USA. They also have much tighter gun control laws than the United States.
Quote: AZDuffmanWhy do I think liberals are not intellectually curious? Well first there is their position on Global Warming which ends up as, "Ignore what you see and know, just listen to 'scientific consensus" forgetting that the "scientific cinsensus" was once that the earth was flat and "bleeding" a person was a good thing.
I'm not sure either of these were ever the "scientific consensus" especially the flat earth position.
(This doesn't mean Global warming is true or not).
Quote:The refusal to even consider creationism/intelligent design, saying species developed because of "gene mutations" but ignoring that most mutations would be bad or fatal, no they refuse to even consider it.
And making that explanation for going against Evolution is failing to understand how the theory of Evolution works. Outright gene mutation is only one mechanism of the genetic evolution. And if -some- mututations are non-harmful (and this does happen), and they propagate, then it works. There's been some pretty good papers written on the subject, modelling it mathematically to show with a low rate of large mutations, even a small chance of a non-harmful mutation can explain genetic drift.
I've considered Creationism and Intelligent Design. I find those ideas have far more flaws than the Modern Evolutionary Synthesis does. I'd suggest you get intellectually curious and decide for yourself though. Note that MES does not explain abogenesis (how did life start).
(This doesn't mean MES is true or not)
Quote:Thinking gun laws save lives but ignoring the places with the toughest gun laws tend to have the most gun violence. Thinking that more money will solve any societal issue.
Canada has tough gun laws. Canada has lower rate of gun violence. I'm not sure you equation follows there. The UK banned hand guns, the rate of hand gun deaths is lower in the UK than the US. Not sure I follow their either.
(This doesn't mean that gun control works or not).
Quote:I could go on and on.
You could indeed, but you'd still be batting .500.
Some liberals don't think critically either. Some conservatives don't critically think either.
Quote: thecesspit
Canada has tough gun laws. Canada has lower rate of gun violence. .
You know what kind of neighborhoods have gun
violence in the States? How many of those kinds
of neighborhoods are in Canada? I'm guessing
none.
Think Chicago.
Quote: EvenBobYou know what kind of neighborhoods have gun
violence in the States? How many of those kinds
of neighborhoods are in Canada? I'm guessing
none.
You're right. Those Socialist Canadians don't have poor people or gun violence. So let's move farther to the left & implement more gun control laws. That's what you meant, right?
Toronto, Calgary, Montreal, Winnipeg, Edmonton, Vancouver... it's almost like Canada is a real country with real cities!!
Quote: AZDuffmanWell first there is their position on Global Warming which ends up as, "Ignore what you see and know, just listen to 'scientific consensus" forgetting that the "scientific cinsensus" was once that the earth was flat and "bleeding" a person was a good thing.
Therefore all scientific conclusions are wrong?
Quote: AZDuffmanOr the whole "Bush lied" nonsense where they do not understand how gathering intel works.
You mean the bush administration didn't make a disproportionately strong statement despite the flimsy amount of information?
Quote: AZDuffmanThe refusal to even consider creationism/intelligent design, saying species developed because of "gene mutations" but ignoring that most mutations would be bad or fatal, no they refuse to even consider it.
Do you think the theory of evolution states that every genetic mutation was beneficial and along the lines of some greater plan?
Quote: AZDuffmanThinking gun laws save lives but ignoring the places with the toughest gun laws tend to have the most gun violence.
Do you think there is any chance that the areas that managed to get gun laws got them because of environmental factors that leads to a lot of violence?
Quote: AZDuffmanThinking that more money will solve any societal issue.
What liberal has ever said this? Many liberals identify them as fiscal conservatives but they just disagree with you on the things that should be cut.
Quote: AZDuffmanI could go on and on.
You could. But imagine all the bias and close mindedness that you think us liberals have and understand that we think the exact same thing about you. Every word you say we see through the same tinted glasses that turn anything you say into perceived ignorance. Which of us is right? Is it possible we are both right and just have a slightly stronger preference for marginally different sides of an issue but not the huge division that we create when we vilify each other?
Quote: rdw4potusYou're right. Those Socialist Canadians don't have poor people
Oh, Canada has poor people. Do I have to spell
it out for you? Ever been inside a MI or IL prison?
Quote: kewljYou win, Bob. You know everything, including evidently what I was thinking and trying to imply. I give up.
Ha! Bob is almost certainly older than you, and remembers political history better than you. IMO, Bob is one of this forum's most entertaining and outspoken members. His posts are opinionated, but usually factual, whether or not you agree with him.
Quote: EvenBobOh, Canada has poor people. Do I have to spell
it out for you? Ever been inside a MI or IL prison?
There are black people in Canada, Bob.
Quote: EvenBobOh, Canada has poor people. Do I have to spell
it out for you? Ever been inside a MI or IL prison?
Yes you do, if the claim is gun control makes areas more violence, you do. Clearly if Chicago is a good case study, and Canada cannot match that case study, it must be some other factor than gun control that increases gun crime.
If the claim is guns crime is more prevalent in Chicago, I fail to see what that has to do with anything much, unless you are making a testable assertion based on Chicago.
Quote: rdw4potusThere are black people in Canada, Bob.
We got all sorts up here. Gays, Mormons and Women, too.
Quote: rdw4potusThere are black people in Canada, Bob.
Yup. 750,000.. We have 39,000,000, give or take.
Thats over 50 times more than Canada.
Quote: EvenBobYup. 750,000.. We have 39,000,000, give or take.
Thats over 50 times more than Canada.
And... how does this prove that gun control makes areas more violent, exactly?
Quote: EvenBobYup. 750,000.. We have 39,000,000, give or take.
Thats over 50 times more than Canada.
Well, damn. I'd better go buy me some guns! Never know when you're going to need to shoot a ni....
Quote: thecesspitAnd... how does this prove that gun control makes areas more violent, exactly?
Chicago has the highest murder rate and has the
strictest gun laws in the country. Only the criminals
have guns.
Quote: rxwineWe have lots of guns in the U.S. in order to kill the poor people. It's not as efficient as you might think.
Oh, I dunno. We've got them shooting each other. That must be a good start, right?
Quote: EvenBobChicago has the highest murder rate and has the
strictest gun laws in the country. Only the criminals
have guns.
Chicago's gun laws are tighter than DC's? Chicago's murder rate is worse than Detroit's or Camden's or East Saint Louis's?
Quote: EvenBobOnly the criminals
have guns.
What percentage of the time do they use the guns to shoot each other, and only each other?
Quote: rdw4potusChicago's gun laws are tighter than DC's? Chicago's murder rate is worse than Detroit's or Camden's or East Saint Louis's?
"Chicago has the highest murder rate in the U.S., nearly double that of New York City." Newspaper Article.
Quote: rdw4potusWhat percentage of the time do they use the guns to shoot each other, and only each other?
So that doesn't count as murder to you?
Quote: EvenBob"Chicago has the highest murder rate in the U.S., nearly double that of New York City." Newspaper Article.
newspaper article? Seriously? What, like the Bumblef*ck Daily News from 1927?
Quote: EvenBobSo that doesn't count as murder to you?
I guess it counts as murder, but not at all as violent crime that would be in any way deterred by me carrying a weapon. Nobody else needs a gun to stop gang members from killing each other.
Quote: rdw4potusThere are black people in Canada, Bob.
Probably less than 700K. As a minority, they are substantially outnumbered by ethnic Chinese and South Asians.
Canada does seem to have remarkably little race based rioting in it's history. Wikipedia lists three relatively minor riots, all at least 80 years ago. One against Greeks, on against Jews, and one against Asians.
But I fail to understand the purpose of the comment. Everyone in the world knows that racial relationships have had a substantial influence on American (and Latin American) history. They just simply have not been a big part of Canadian history.
Canadian history has been more influenced by so called "invisible minorities" or minority groups based on language or religion. The so called "visible minorities" are largely a result of immigration in the last 30 years.
Quote: rdw4potusnewspaper article? Seriously? What, like the Bumblef*ck Daily News from 1927?
http://www.bet.com/news/health/2012/02/01/chicago-has-highest-murder-rate-in-the-u-s.html
Quote: EvenBobhttp://www.bet.com/news/health/2012/02/01/chicago-has-highest-murder-rate-in-the-u-s.html
So BET is a newspaper? :-)
That article also says that "Other cities topping the list were Michigan, Pennsylvania, Oklahoma, Louisiana, Indiana, Tennessee, Wisconsin, California and Nevada." So, while the Chicago stat is probably right, the reporting could probably also suck less.
Quote: rdw4potusSo BET is a newspaper? :-)
Its obviously a different source, duh. Too bad
you can't look up things yourself, you'd be amazed
what it does for ignorance.
Quote: rxwineWe have lots of guns in the U.S. in order to kill the poor people. thieves, rapists, murderers and losers.
Fixed your post.
Why?? Don't they know Romney is doomed? Don't
they know the people are jonesing for another 4 fun
filled years of Obama/Biden? Obama has said
those promises he made and didn't keep in '08 was
all in jest, he's serious now. In fact, he's getting
turnouts of 500-1000 people at some of his events.
Most are bussed in, but hey..
Quote: zippyboyQuote: rxwineWe have lots of guns in the U.S. in order to kill the poor people. thieves, rapists, murderers and losers.
Fixed your post.
You need to add accidental shootings of children, gun owner suicides (although, losers covers it), disgruntled employees, and the favored weapon of choice of madmen in general.
Quote: EvenBobMore than 10,000 people packed the Romney rally in WI.
Why??
Good question.
They couldn't get Allen West to show up to add a little contrast?Quote: EvenBob
Quote: EvenBob"Chicago has the highest murder rate in the U.S., nearly double that of New York City." Newspaper Article.
That's a pretty old stat. The 2010 FBI crime stats survey has Chicago at a murder and non-negligent manslaughter rate of 15.2 (per 100k), New York at a rate of 6.4 and New Orleans at 49.1 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_cities_by_crime_rate).
This is by-the-by. The statement was (by AZ) that Gun Control increases Gun Crime. The murder rate in Chicago appears not to either back this up or prove it incorrect. Evidence from other countries suggest this is not true, therefore perhaps it's only gun control in the US that increases the murder rate?
Note that Buffalo, New York has a violent crime rate 2.5 times that of New York, New York, and a murder rate over 3 times. So it can't just be gun control on the state level.
Quote: thecesspit
This is by-the-by. The statement was (by AZ) that Gun Control increases Gun Crime.
NO. The statement is that gun control does not reduce gun grime. If gun control reduced gun crime, Chicago and Washington DC would have very low levels of gun crime. NYC would have low levels of gun crime. This is not the case.
Quote:Evidence from other countries suggest this is not true, therefore perhaps it's only gun control in the US that increases the murder rate?
In 2010 8,775 people were killed (murder not accidental) by guns in the USA. To quote Archie Bunker, "would you be happier if they were pushed out of windows?"
At .003% of the total population, this is not a bad number at all.
4,000 people were murdered by other methods, so people who want to commit murder clearly do not let lack of a gun stand in their way.
Swedes, those peaceful socialists, killed 232 of their 9.4 million fellow Swedes, mostly without guns, for a rate of 0.00002468085, or .0024%.
Is the USA really that much more violent?
Quote: AZDuffmanNO. The statement is that gun control does not reduce gun grime. If gun control reduced gun crime, Chicago and Washington DC would have very low levels of gun crime. NYC would have low levels of gun crime. This is not the case.
In 2010 8,775 people were killed (murder not accidental) by guns in the USA. To quote Archie Bunker, "would you be happier if they were pushed out of windows?"
At .003% of the total population, this is not a bad number at all.
4,000 people were murdered by other methods, so people who want to commit murder clearly do not let lack of a gun stand in their way.
Swedes, those peaceful socialists, killed 232 of their 9.4 million fellow Swedes, mostly without guns, for a rate of 0.00002468085, or .0024%.
Is the USA really that much more violent?
You appear to be comparing the rate of gun-related murders in the USA to the total homicide rate in Sweden, and expecting the rest of us to accept your argument. We're not idiots. Adding the 4,000 non-gun homicides to the 8,775 gun-related ones yields .00437%. So, yes, the USA (.00437%) is almost twice as violent as Sweden (.0024%).
Quote: rdw4potusI guess it counts as murder, but not at all as violent crime that would be in any way deterred by me carrying a weapon. Nobody else needs a gun to stop gang members from killing each other.
The point is to be able to defend yourself, not be a hero and stop criminals. (Although you could, I'd advise against it haha)
In many cases, areas with strong gun laws have worse violent crime. You could argue that it's mainly because those areas were previously prone to violence, but then I'd argue that the laws functions are only to prevent law abiding citizens from getting them (Obviously). And what good are you doing by that, and aren't you violating the 2nd Amendment to the US Constitution?
And I saw somewhere earlier that "kulin" had said that many liberals consider themselves to be fiscally conservative, but don't want to cut the same things as Conservative. I usually feel that such liberals are not fiscally conservative, because they can't comprehend the scale of the problem, and are NOT serious about cutting the government down to size. Using the "we need a balanced" approach model of raising taxes and cutting spending doesn't sound balanced when we've raised spending so significantly. The Federal Government now spends more than 3.5 trillion dollars a year. It's time for that to get slashed.
I also find that many who consider themselves Conservative don't recognize the reality that our military has grown to the point where it is extremely, extremely wasteful and to a big degree, harmful to the security in the US, which disables them from being truly fiscally conservative.
Quote: AZDuffmanNO. The statement is that gun control does not reduce gun grime. If gun control reduced gun crime, Chicago and Washington DC would have very low levels of gun crime. NYC would have low levels of gun crime. This is not the case.
No, they wouldn't. At least not from a strictly logical standpoint. They'd just have lower levels than they would have had without the gun control laws.
Quote: Boney526The point is to be able to defend yourself, not be a hero and stop criminals. (Although you could, I'd advise against it haha)
In many cases, areas with strong gun laws have worse violent crime. You could argue that it's mainly because those areas were previously prone to violence, but then I'd argue that the laws functions are only to prevent law abiding citizens from getting them (Obviously). And what good are you doing by that, and aren't you violating the 2nd Amendment to the US Constitution?
And I saw somewhere earlier that "kulin" had said that many liberals consider themselves to be fiscally conservative, but don't want to cut the same things as Conservative. I usually feel that such liberals are not fiscally conservative, because they can't comprehend the scale of the problem, and are NOT serious about cutting the government down to size. Using the "we need a balanced" approach model of raising taxes and cutting spending doesn't sound balanced when we've raised spending so significantly. The Federal Government now spends more than 3.5 trillion dollars a year. It's time for that to get slashed.
I also find that many who consider themselves Conservative don't recognize the reality that our military has grown to the point where it is extremely, extremely wasteful and to a big degree, harmful to the security in the US, which disables them from being truly fiscally conservative.
I think Kulin's point was that Liberals would like to cut defense spending rather than social programs.
The words "well regulated" are in the first sentence of the second amendment, so I don't think that gun control regulations are necessarily unconstitutional. I'm not a big proponent of gun-control laws, but I find most conservative arguments on the subject to be exceptionally idiotic and unnecessarily weak and misleading.
Quote: rdw4potusNo, they wouldn't. At least not from a strictly logical standpoint. They'd just have lower levels than they would have had without the gun control laws.
This would be assuming criminals cared about gun control laws, which they rarely do.
What criminals do care about is a chance they will get shot themselves when commiting a crime. If a law-abiding citized is known to be unarmed they are a softer target. If the criminal thinks he might get shot back he will look for a softer target.
Quote: Boney526
I also find that many who consider themselves Conservative don't recognize the reality that our military has grown to the point where it is extremely, extremely wasteful and to a big degree, harmful to the security in the US, which disables them from being truly fiscally conservative.
The thing is if the USA wants to be a world leader and get our way this is required. World trade flourishes because any country can ship anywhere wiht no threat, except for a few piracy hotbeds. The reason for this is the US Navy, which is the only navy ever to rule all four oceans. With the possible exception of the Brits, every other navy is more of a coast guard, nobody has blue-ocean capability. Any such capability they have is because the USN allows their operation. If China decided to make a naval battle today they would build their ships in 2050 with glass bottoms---so they could see their current navy!
The USA is the only country with a real expeditionary army and marines. By having these forces, a country like Iran will concentrate on building their land forces, ignoring their navy. This way Iran is less a threat to say the UAE. This is just as US Military planners want things.
It is a balancing act, but it is working for now. And a military is a constitutional duty of our government.
Read stratfor.com and their books for more on these thoughts, they are a great source.
Quote: AZDuffmanThis would be assuming criminals cared about gun control laws, which they rarely do.
What criminals do care about is a chance they will get shot themselves when commiting a crime. If a law-abiding citized is known to be unarmed they are a softer target. If the criminal thinks he might get shot back he will look for a softer target.
This line of reasoning only works if you assume that criminals never shoot each other. In the cities you mentioned earlier (Chicago, DC, NY), this is a very frequent occurrence. You'd need to back those murders off of the total in order for the statistics to have any meaning at all relative to this debate.
Quote: AZDuffmanNO. The statement is that gun control does not reduce gun grime.
Apologies, I made a classic logical error and reversed your statement of "a implies b", to "b implies a".
Quote:If gun control reduced gun crime, Chicago and Washington DC would have very low levels of gun crime. NYC would have low levels of gun crime. This is not the case.
It's possible gun control has reduced gun crime in those cities from higher levels. I doubt it.
Quote:Is the USA really that much more violent?
It would appear the murder rate is twice that in the US than in Sweden. I suspect again the rate is nothing to do with how the means of production is spread :)
