Quote: thecesspitApologies, I made a classic logical error and reversed your statement of "a implies b", to "b implies a".
It's possible gun control has reduced gun crime in those cities from higher levels. I doubt it.
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 :)
Apology accepted. I picked Sweden because so many who favor gun control also consider it a utopia of some sort where all is well. That and I had no better example at the time.
Quote: s2dbakerNot all of Wisconsin, just the morons in his district.
I live in his district. Secret administrators, do your thing.
Quote: buzzpaffI live in his district. Secret administrators, do your thing.
Are you saying you're a moron? Well, i guess you do think that Colorado is in Wisconsin...;-)
Quote: s2dbakerMitt Romney would like to change the Constitution so that people who don't have any business experience can't be President. Why did Mitt choose a person who, under the Romney constitution, is not qualified to be the President?
You don't think that driving the wiener-mobile counts as business experience? If anything would qualify someone to work in the white house, that'd be it!!
Quote: s2dbakerMitt Romney would like to change the Constitution so that people who don't have any business experience can't be President. Why did Mitt choose a person who, under the Romney constitution, is not qualified to be the President?
He did not say that--he mentioned that a business owner said that to him. He used the story to say that the President needs to understand how business works.
Again, why did Mitt pick Paul Ryan to be one Moroni trumpet blast away from the Presidency if understanding business is important enough to think changing the constitution is a good idea?Quote: RonCQuote: s2dbakerMitt Romney would like to change the Constitution so that people who don't have any business experience can't be President. Why did Mitt choose a person who, under the Romney constitution, is not qualified to be the President?
He did not say that--he mentioned that a business owner said that to him. He used the story to say that the President needs to understand how business works.
Ryan. From the turnout on the Right everywhere they
went this weekend, and the money they made, its
looks like everybody is happy with the pick.
I love it when everybody's this happy.
Quote: rdw4potusI 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.
The words well regulated refer to the ability to form militia. The Founders saw militia forces as necessary to defend the country, and the right to bare arms as necessary for both the protection of Liberty and the ability of the people to defend the nation in a time of crisis by forming militia. The fact that the words "well regulated" are in there refer to the fact that militia were expected not to impede the US government and it's armies. In other words, rebellious, or treasonous militia are not protected.
The word "regulate" is also in the commerce clause, but when written in that context the English at the time would translate now into "make regular."
I understand his point, but I'd argue that simply cutting defense spending and not social programs is not enough. Social programs are the majority of the problem. Defense is pretty much just as large (in terms of spending) but I think social programs breed bad outcomes in far too many situations, and are very counter-productive in these cases. Both have to be cut.
Quote: s2dbakerAgain, why did Mitt pick Paul Ryan to be one Moroni trumpet blast away from the Presidency if understanding business is important enough to think changing the constitution is a good idea?Quote: RonCQuote: s2dbakerMitt Romney would like to change the Constitution so that people who don't have any business experience can't be President. Why did Mitt choose a person who, under the Romney constitution, is not qualified to be the President?
He did not say that--he mentioned that a business owner said that to him. He used the story to say that the President needs to understand how business works.
He said that he thought it was important that the President understand business. I'm guessing that his vetting process assured him that Paul Ryan understood enough about business to be selected. Perhaps Mr. Ryan is not a "perfect" fit for him but Romney obviously decided he was the "best" fit.
Quote: AZDuffmanThe 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.
Right, but that doesn't mean there isn't a lot of waste, and a lot ways that it impedes our security.
EG: Troops in Germany/Japan. Even South Korea, to a certain extent. I don't see how the Invasion of Iraq made us safer. (I do see how Afghanistan was appropriate.)
Not to mention that the Constitution requires Congress to declare War, something which we've been basically ignoring for 70 years now. (WWII being the last declared war, and some conflicts in between being authorized)
I would be happier if Romney chose Sarah Palin but Ryan will be adequate. I'm happy :)Quote: EvenBobI'm just glad the Lib's are 'giddy with happiness' over
Ryan. From the turnout on the Right everywhere they
went this weekend, and the money they made, its
looks like everybody is happy with the pick.
I love it when everybody's this happy.
Quote: Boney526(I do see how Afghanistan was appropriate.)
Really? Explain it to my son. He just got back
from 9 months there and he says nobody he
worked with has a clue why they're there. He
ran missions almost every day and has yet
figure out what the objective was. Its not to
win, he said thats off the table.
So, tell me, why are we there?
Quote: EvenBobI'm just glad the Lib's are 'giddy with happiness' over
Ryan. From the turnout on the Right everywhere they
went this weekend, and the money they made, its
looks like everybody is happy with the pick.
I love it when everybody's this happy.
LOL. Yep, because the far right and the far right are the only people that exist and/or matter.
Quote: rdw4potusLOL. Yep, because the far right and the far right are the only people that exist and/or matter.
There's a few others, we'll be hearing from them
in Nov. I just read that 74% percent of Republicans
said theyre thinking about the election quite a bit,
compared to 61 percent of Democrats, in a recent
Gallup poll. Probably means nothing.
Biden been? I love when he talks, he can insert his foot
in his mouth all the way to his knee. I'll miss him when
he leaves in Jan.
Quote: EvenBobThere's a few others, we'll be hearing from them
in Nov. I just read that 74% percent of Republicans
said theyre thinking about the election quite a bit,
compared to 61 percent of Democrats, in a recent
Gallup poll. Probably means nothing.
Depends on what they're thinking. If the GOPers are thinking "Oh crap. Romney? Seriously??" then it means something pretty different from what I think you're implying.
Quote: rdw4potusDepends on what they're thinking. If the GOPers are thinking "Oh crap. Romney? Seriously??"
I'm sure thats it. They would rather have had Gingrich,
he didn't have any baggage that could have been exploited
at all. But now they're stuck with Romney, all that experience
and all that vetting and no baggage. Dang the luck.
(oops, he was called a bully in 7th grade by somebody on the
Left. Forgot about that)
Quote: EvenBobI'm sure thats it. They would rather have had Gingrich,
he didn't have any baggage that could have been exploited
at all. But now they're stuck with Romney, all that experience
and all that vetting and no baggage. Dang the luck.
(oops, he was called a bully in 7th grade by somebody on the
Left. Forgot about that)
Well, he was a bully in the 7th grade to somebody on the left. It's not like the accusation was unfounded. But that really doesn't matter.
I would think that the actual conservatives in the GOP would have a problem with the slick looking guy whose position keeps changing all the time. I kind of wonder - if John Kerry looked and talked like Mitt Romney, would he have won in '04? That's the level of flip-floppage we're talking about here. I'm pro-choice, unless I'm not. I like civil unions, until I don't. Socialized healthcare is a good idea, until it makes me look bad. Just so you know, y'all on the far right are the only people in the country who are seeing this stuff and not chuckling.
Quote: EvenBobReally? Explain it to my son. He just got back
from 9 months there and he says nobody he
worked with has a clue why they're there. He
ran missions almost every day and has yet
figure out what the objective was. Its not to
win, he said thats off the table.
So, tell me, why are we there?
Well I think it was mishandled. We would have been much better off using smaller units to try to find Bin Laden and outposts, a full on invasion was a poor decision. But that wasn't my main point. The point was that we are far too huge on both military intervention and social programs, and we have to cut both to get to an appropriate spending level.
I also don't think we still need to be there, and we most definitely don't need such a gigantic presence there.
Quote: rdw4potusif John Kerry looked and talked like Mitt Romney, would he have won in '04?
Whats looks got to do with it? Kerry was outed by
his swiftboat mates, not because of the way he looked
and talked.
Quote: EvenBobWhats looks got to do with it? Kerry was outed by
his swiftboat mates, not because of the way he looked
and talked.
He was ousted because he's a flip-flopper. he was for it before he was against it, and all that. Kerry looked like a d-bag when he said that. Romney's changed his mind on just about every conceivable issue in the past 6 years, but he's just looked so damn good doing it that it's as though nobody cares.
Quote: Boney526I understand his point, but I'd argue that simply cutting defense spending and not social programs is not enough. Social programs are the majority of the problem. Defense is pretty much just as large (in terms of spending) but I think social programs breed bad outcomes in far too many situations, and are very counter-productive in these cases. Both have to be cut.
Boney, I appreciate that you are not willing to just discount my point and understand that these are nuanced positions. It makes any discussion more enjoyable for me.
I think that part of any disagreement we may have has to do with how we value these social programs and what specific programs we are talking about and what specific bad outcomes we are including in the defense category.
Chris Christie, a huge conservative favorite has cut funding for NJ After 3, an after school program in his state. This is a pretty consistent conservative move and not controversial. As you said, conservatives generally think that social programs have unreasonably high costs. However, I think it is fiscally irresponsible because studies ( such as http://www.claremontmckenna.edu/rose/publications/pdf/after_school.pdf ) have shown time and time again that programs such as this not only drastically improve the lives of those who participate, but they reduce the net cost to society by a huge amount (in this study $79,484 to $119,427). Conservatives typically prefer to tackle these problems with a big stick (prisons, police, etc) and liberals typically prefer to tackle these problems with a big carrot (after school programs, support services, job training, rehab, etc). The point I am trying to make is that the liberal preference in many cases has upfront costs that conservatives see as bloated government waste but are actually long term money savers.
Now that is not to say that the government does not waste money. There was that scandal over the 2010 Las Vegas General Services Administration conference and I am sure it is not hard to find many other such instances. From my perspective that just reinforces the idea that we should be vigilant in monitoring our government.
Quote: kulinBoney, I appreciate that you are not willing to just discount my point and understand that these are nuanced positions. It makes any discussion more enjoyable for me.
I think that part of any disagreement we may have has to do with how we value these social programs and what specific programs we are talking about and what specific bad outcomes we are including in the defense category.
Chris Christie, a huge conservative favorite has cut funding for NJ After 3, an after school program in his state. This is a pretty consistent conservative move and not controversial. As you said, conservatives generally think that social programs have unreasonably high costs. However, I think it is fiscally irresponsible because studies ( such as http://www.claremontmckenna.edu/rose/publications/pdf/after_school.pdf ) have shown time and time again that programs such as this not only drastically improve the lives of those who participate, but they reduce the net cost to society by a huge amount (in this study $79,484 to $119,427). Conservatives typically prefer to tackle these problems with a big stick (prisons, police, etc) and liberals typically prefer to tackle these problems with a big carrot (after school programs, support services, job training, rehab, etc). The point I am trying to make is that the liberal preference in many cases has upfront costs that conservatives see as bloated government waste but are actually long term money savers.
Now that is not to say that the government does not waste money. There was that scandal over the 2010 Las Vegas General Services Administration conference and I am sure it is not hard to find many other such instances. From my perspective that just reinforces the idea that we should be vigilant in monitoring our government.
The quoted study was underwritten by the "Afterschool Alliance". I am generally suspect of studies underwritten by a group with a stake in the outcome.
I wouldn't trust a study underwritten by the "Anti-Afterschool Coalition" either. I'd rather see independent studies (no ties to either side).
Quote: RonCThe quoted study was underwritten by the "Afterschool Alliance". I am generally suspect of studies underwritten by a group with a stake in the outcome.
I wouldn't trust a study underwritten by the "Anti-Afterschool Coalition" either. I'd rather see independent studies (no ties to either side).
I think your skepticism is justified, I just don't have a ton of studies sitting around waiting for forum discussions :(. I know the general theme of the studies though and I only meant to provide one example.
Quote: RonCThe quoted study was underwritten by the "Afterschool Alliance". I am generally suspect of studies underwritten by a group with a stake in the outcome.
I wouldn't trust a study underwritten by the "Anti-Afterschool Coalition" either. I'd rather see independent studies (no ties to either side).
That's a good point. but it's tricky to find impartial studies. They have to be funded by someone, and there's usually only 3 (bad) choices. 1. side A, 2. Side B, and 3. the Government. Given those three choices, and especially in the context of a discussion about limiting government spending, which group would you like to see fund the study?
Quote: rdw4potusHe was ousted because he's a flip-flopper.
No he wasn't. He was swiftboated and it killed
his chances. Thats all anybody was talking about,
don't you remember? I still have the book. What
a piece of work HE is..
This is one of dozens of comments from
decorated men who served with Kerry.
This is what sunk him, not flip flopping.
"He was aggressive, but vain and prone to impulsive
judgment, often with disregard for specific tactical
assignments. He was a 'loose cannon.' In an abbreviated
tour of four months and 12 days, and with his specious
medals secure, Lt.(jg) Kerry bugged out and began his
infamous betrayal of all United States forces in the
Vietnam War. That included our soldiers, our marines,
our sailors, our coast guardsmen, our airmen, and our POWs."
Rear Admiral Roy Hoffman, USN (retired)
Quote: rdw4potusThat's a good point. but it's tricky to find impartial studies. They have to be funded by someone, and there's usually only 3 (bad) choices. 1. side A, 2. Side B, and 3. the Government. Given those three choices, and especially in the context of a discussion about limiting government spending, which group would you like to see fund the study?
I'll admit that I don't have a great answer to what study should be believed; I would say that the best we may be able to do is to approach a study like this with skepticism and ask lots of questions about how they arrived at their conclusions. If both sides of an issue had studies, view both of them with skepticism.
I should vote for Obama. Why do we need 4 more
years of Obama, can anybody answer that?
Quote: EvenBobI'm still waiting for somebody here to tell me why
I should vote for Obama. Why do we need 4 more
years of Obama, can anybody answer that?
I think it's looking slightly better than 4 years of Romney, but it's horse crap either way for moderates and members of the middle-class.
Quote: EvenBobI'm still waiting for somebody here to tell me why
I should vote for Obama. Why do we need 4 more
years of Obama, can anybody answer that?
Better the devil you know than the devil you don't?
Quote: RonCI'll admit that I don't have a great answer to what study should be believed; I would say that the best we may be able to do is to approach a study like this with skepticism and ask lots of questions about how they arrived at their conclusions. If both sides of an issue had studies, view both of them with skepticism.
It seems like there could almost be a blind funding mechanism, and I wonder if there's even a market for it. Interested Party gives $$ to Blind-Funding Executor, who gives it to Reputable Investigative Service, who runs the study. That way, Reputable Investigative Service doesn't know who paid them for the study. And I bet that the fee paid to Blind-Funding Executor would be less than the money wasted on competing slanted studies.
Quote: rdw4potusI think it's looking slightly better than 4 years of Romney,.
But thats the typical Lib non answer. They can't
say what they like about Obama because there's
nothing there to like. So they can do is bash
Romney. You are aware thats what they did
with Carter, right? 'Well well well all I can say
is anybody but that awful Reagan!!'
Quote: EvenBobBut thats the typical Lib non answer. They can't
say what they like about Obama because there's
nothing there to like. So they can do is bash
Romney. You are aware thats what they did
with Carter, right? 'Well well well all I can say
is anybody but that awful Reagan!!'
FWIW, I find it personally insulting to be called a liberal. Please do not say that again. I've made it pretty clear that I'm a moderate, and that I don't like either candidate. If I could vote this year (I can't - I won't have established residency in my new state in time to register), I'd probably vote for Obama. He's a 3 on a 10 point scale for me. Romney is like a 2.5. They're both better than the other GOP primary contenders (Except Huntsman - I'd have loved to see Huntsman win), but neither of them is in any way impressive.
Quote: rdw4potusFWIW, I find it personally insulting to be called a liberal. .
LOL, I have to admit I did that on purpose. If you
read it again, I never said you're a Lib, I said it was
a 'Lib answer'. I knew you'd react this way. Do what
I do, ask before you react. "Hey, are you calling me
a LIB?" And I would have said no.
I'm basically evil minded, I can't help it..
Quote: EvenBobLOL, I have to admit I did that on purpose. If you
read it again, I never said you're a Lib, I said it was
a 'Lib answer'. I knew you'd react this way. Do what
I do, ask before you react. "Hey, are you calling me
a LIB?" And I would have said no.
I'm basically evil minded, I can't help it..
There you go again, acting like a jackass;-)
Quote: rdw4potusThere you go again, acting like a jackass;-)
Hey, are you calling me a jackass????? Or
implying I'm acting LIKE a jackass?
Quote: EvenBobHey, are you calling me a jackass????? Or
implying I'm acting LIKE a jackass?
LOL. The latter of course, sir! I would never use that word to describe you directly:-)
Quote: rdw4potusLOL. The latter of course, sir! I would never use that word to describe you directly:-)
Well, Ok then. I was pretty hot for a minute there...
Bob, you've been banned from voting for Obama. You are not allowed!Quote: EvenBobI'm still waiting for somebody here to tell me why
I should vote for Obama. Why do we need 4 more
years of Obama, can anybody answer that?
Quote: EvenBobHey, are you calling me a jackass????? Or
implying I'm acting LIKE a jackass?
Is this a trick question ? Is there only one right answer ??
Quote: buzzpaffIs this a trick question ? Is there only one right answer ??
i just took an online test for my summer class. on one question, the answers were:
a. wrong
b. right
c. wrong
d. b.
e. c and d
d was scored as the correct answer. I answered "b" and received no credit. How the hell does that work?
Was the question: What letter traditionally follows "a" in the alphabet song?Quote: rdw4potusi just took an online test for my summer class. on one question, the answers were:
a. wrong
b. right
c. wrong
d. b.
e. c and d
d was scored as the correct answer. I answered "b" and received no credit. How the hell does that work?
Do not call your instructor a jackass !
Quote: rdw4potusi just took an online test for my summer class. on one question, the answers were:
a. wrong
b. right
c. wrong
d. b.
e. c and d
d was scored as the correct answer. I answered "b" and received no credit. How the hell does that work?
Was the question 'wheres waldo'?
Quote: EvenBobBut thats the typical Lib non answer. They can't
say what they like about Obama because there's
nothing there to like. So they can do is bash
Romney. You are aware thats what they did
with Carter, right? 'Well well well all I can say
is anybody but that awful Reagan!!'
The liberals could not say what they liked about Obama in 2008. When asked what he did that they liked all you heard was, "Didn't you hear his speech on......."
Obama is the biggest cult of personality the USA has ever seen. I seriously cannot understand this magical hold he has on a certain kind of person. To this kind of person it is not his policies or accomplishments, it is just.......HIM. Oprah would have been an example of this kind of person, just goo goo over Obama because he is Obama. And on the other side are conservatives who just want to give up and wait for 2016. Even though Obama is a total paper tiger they feel he cannot be beaten.
JFK challenged big things. Reagan made it OK to be patriotic again. Obama just trashes half of the country and gets the other half yelling "YES WE CAN" because they seem to be looking for the person who will tell them "don't worry, it will be all right" as if they are a child who just lost a pet.
Does 40% of the USA just want to hear a person repeat empty platitudes?
Quote: AZDuffmanDoes 40% of the USA just want to hear a person repeat empty platitudes?
I thought the Republican Party represented a bit more than 40%
If you think this is bad:
The Obameter Scorecard
Promise Kept 190 ( 37%)
Compromise 71 ( 14%)
Promise Broken 81 ( 16%)
Stalled 50 ( 10%)
In the Works 114 ( 22%)
Not yet rated 2 (0%)
Consider this:
GOP Pledge-O-Meter Scorecard
Promise Kept 11 ( 19%)
Compromise 2 ( 4%)
Promise Broken 9 ( 16%)
Stalled 3 ( 5%)
In the Works 11 ( 19%)
Not yet rated 21 ( 37%)
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/promises/obameter/
Quote: AZDuffman
Does 40% of the USA just want to hear a person repeat empty platitudes?
These things have a short lifespan. Obama's golden
halo is gone, he jumped the shark about 2 years ago.
When you run a long con like he has, it doesn't work
well with millions watching.