Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
April 25, 2014, 12:38:18 am
HomePredMockPollEVCalcAFEWIKIHelpLogin Register
News: Please delete your old personal messages.

  Show Posts
Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 6 ... 196
1  General Politics / Economics / Re: Finally a good idea from some article writer on: March 11, 2013, 07:48:03 pm
http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2013/03/forget-the-good-jobs-report-longterm-unemployment-is-still-terrifying/273859/#

The long term unemployed should be hired to government union jobs based on the length of unemployment.

Who the hell is going to pay for that? The Tooth Fairy and Santa Claus?
2  General Politics / Economics / Re: Krugman: There is no deficit problem on: March 11, 2013, 07:47:18 pm
At this point, Krugman is practically a shameless political operative who is beyond emotionally invested. He is the last person to turn to for advice.
3  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: Will Governor Bush run for President? on: March 11, 2013, 07:43:40 pm
Would be a disaster if he won the nomination. Would be a catharsis for the party to reject a Bush in the primaries, though.
4  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: Romney Continues to Burnish His Conservative Credentials on: March 11, 2013, 07:42:29 pm
I see what you did here.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZqdX_Zj8cEs
5  General Politics / Political Debate / Re: Alcohol Deaths Outnumber Firearm Murders, So Should We Bring Back Prohibition? on: March 11, 2013, 07:28:27 pm
Politico from your own cherrypicked article...

Quote
We find that alcohol consumption fell sharply at the beginning of Prohibition, to approximately 30 percent of its pre-Prohibi- tion level. During the next several years, however, alcohol consumption increased sharply, to about 60-70 percent of its pre- Prohibition level.

Yes, prohibition was associated with consumption declining initially, but it quickly rebounded especially when you account for the dramatic change in price brought about by driving the good into the black market. To re-quote the authors:

"Changes in consumption during Prohibition were modest given the change in price. This suggests that legal deterrents had little effect on limiting consumption outside of their effect on price. Social pressure and respect for the law did not go far in reducing consumption during Prohibition."

Quote
FYI law enforcement has made several advances since the 1930s.

FYI: America is a free nation, where law-abiding citizens have the right to defend their person and property with the use of privately owned firearms. It is not a Politburo-run state where the government confiscates firearms because YOU are too afraid to own one for your own protection and would prefer to force your choice onto everybody else. People who own firearms are not trying to force you to own a firearm, so why are you trying to impose your choice not to own a firearm onto these people?

The only REAL solution to the problem of gun violence is increased institutionalization of the mentally ill coupled with harsher penalties for possession of a firearm while committing a felony (e.g., add 5-10 years to a sentence if somebody is found guilty of a crime while possessing a firearm; add 10-20 years to a sentence if somebody is found guilty of a crime which included the firing of a gun).

As bad as drunk driving was 30 years ago, we did not react to the problem by banning alcohol and/or vehicles. We imposed harsher penalties. We need to do the same thing to those who MISUSE firearms, not those who simply wish to own firearms for self-defense purposes. We do not take away the choice (American is all about choice!) to drink simply because some drinkers end up committing vehicular manslaughter. The same applies to firearms: We must not take away the right to bear arms simply because some of the 330 million people in the country misuse firearms.

Quote
Also it is a lot easier to ferment alcohol than it is to make a relatively safe (for the operator) gun that is as lethal as an assault style rifle.  Actually there are many examples in nature where fruit spontaneously produces ethanol without human intervention.  Fermentation is a natural process.  Guns don't grow on trees.

What is your point? Producing opiates is a natural process too. Computers don't grow on trees, so should we ban them simply because some people use them to steal identities and exploit children? Of course not. Are you in favor of legalizing only naturally produced goods/services and banning all man-made products/services? Absurd.
6  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: Romney Continues to Burnish His Conservative Credentials on: March 11, 2013, 05:00:32 am
Things are going to be so bad by 2016 that the American people will shrug and overwhelmingly elect Romney if he is the nominee. The current field is comparable to the one in 1968: A lot of exciting (i.e., George Romney and Ronald Reagan in '68 and Marco Rubio and Chris Christie in '16) candidates, but only one who is ready to be president on day one (i.e., Richard Nixon in '68 and Mitt Romney in '16). Romney has learned from his mistakes and deserves another shot.

I also suspect Romney would run if the path is there (seriously, what else is more important? What more can he achieve in life?). That means Christie and Rubio either not running, or stumbling badly. I think Romney can take Bush in the primaries. Rejecting Jeb Bush in the primaries would finally lift the shadow of George W. Bush off the backs of Republicans.
7  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: Rubio: Federal Marriage Amendment "Steps on the Rights of States" on: March 10, 2013, 05:35:23 pm
This one truly should just be left to the states. Can't the gay community accept that some places just will not allow them to marry based on natural law and moral principals ever. It is a contract and the federal government needs to just step off and respect the states for once. Sorry Clarence you're on the wrong side of this issue.

Doesn't matter if he's wrong or right, he's on the winning side.

No he's not on the winning side. Eternity will judge this one vastly differently than He did racial civil rights.

Not 'Eternity' (whatever that is), history, and all signs point to gay rights being here to stay. Provide any shred of evidence suggesting a reversal from the present course.

I remember what happened to perceptions of gays and gay rights when AIDS started in America in the early 1980s. If society sees a new and deadly STD, one even worse and more contagious than AIDS, come onto the gay scene, all of the current progress will be obliterated. Signs are discouraging. For example, drug-resistant gonorrhea is starting to spread particularly among gay males. Infections of almost all STDs are on the rise with respect to gay males and females who engage in anal sex. It is all quite reminiscient of the late 1970s, so I will not be the least bit surprised if another killer STD is around the corner, the next 5-10 years, if current trends continue.

The worst part: A lot of pain and suffering could be avoided if everybody properly used condoms all of the time.

Much of the spread of STDs relates to intravenous drug use [anal sex]. Druggies will do anything to get the money for a fix. Next!

Fixed.

Your message is not only untrue, but promotes the denial of the problem and therefore spreads pain and suffering.
8  General Politics / Economics / Re: The extent of inequality in the US on: March 10, 2013, 05:14:59 pm
The maker of the video seems pretty confused, because he keeps making implicit or explicit references to income rather than wealth.

It almost goes without saying that most progressives are confused when it comes to anything related to economics. The reason why they have such a hard time with Romney's income being about $20 million a year is because they think he turns around and consumes $20 million worth of goods/services each year. Their lifestyle choice is to live paycheck-to-paycheck, blowing huge chunks of their income on things they really do not want let alone need, so they figure Romney does the same with his income. The reality is this:



Of course, he has a nicer house than the average Costco shopper, but it's not like he's living it up in Italy with George Clooney, or partying with Bill Maher at the Playboy Mansion. Of course, the most creative people in Hollywood are the accountants. The hypocrisy of the left is sickening...
9  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: Question for Republicans Only: If the 2016 Race Boils Down to Bush Vs. Romney on: March 08, 2013, 01:14:29 pm
Romney

Romney ruined the MA GOP.  He is the worst thing that ever happened to anything ever.

Jeb is the GOP future--if you don't start putting ed reform at the center of the platform there is no conceivable winning GOP coalition I can see.

The Bush's nearly destroyed the GOP natiownide, twice. I have yet to see any concrete evidence that Romney damaged the MA GOP in any fashion that could not just as easily have been blamed on the fact that there was a Republican President with a 20% approval rating in the state at the time, whose named just happened to be Bush.

The idea that the future of the GOP is Jeb Bush, makes me laugh. "Meet the new boss, same as the old boss", anyone?

Yes education should be a center piece, but we don't need Jeb Bush for that. If Jindal wasn't having so many problems in LA, he would be a far better candidate to run on such a platform. He is younger, more in touch with the base, and not a Bush.

Yeah, one of the reasons why Romney lost last year is because of the shadow of George W. Bush. Heck, if John Kerry had been president in 2006 it's quite possible Romney would have ran for re-election and won that year. 2006, 2008 and 2012 were bad years for Republicans because of George W. Bush. 2010 was an OK year for Republicans (failed to win the Senate and failed to beat Harry Reid) because nobody turned out to vote other than Republicans and the hardest of the hardcore Democrats.

Anybody in the Republican Party who thinks they can win with Jeb Bush in 2016 is delusional!
10  General Politics / Political Debate / Re: How much of a problem is the national debt? on: March 08, 2013, 01:02:56 pm
A starter excerpt for why this is the biggest problem we face today (and why the problem is going to blow up in Obama's face or the next president's face unless fiscal responsibility is restored to Washington soon):

"We most often hear about the alarming $15.96 trillion national debt (more than 100% of GDP), and the 2012 budget deficit of $1.1 trillion (6.97% of GDP). As dangerous as those numbers are, they do not begin to tell the story of the federal government's true liabilities.

The actual liabilities of the federal government—including Social Security, Medicare, and federal employees' future retirement benefits—already exceed $86.8 trillion, or 550% of GDP. For the year ending Dec. 31, 2011, the annual accrued expense of Medicare and Social Security was $7 trillion. Nothing like that figure is used in calculating the deficit. In reality, the reported budget deficit is less than one-fifth of the more accurate figure.

Why haven't Americans heard about the titanic $86.8 trillion liability from these programs? One reason: The actual figures do not appear in black and white on any balance sheet....

As of the most recent Trustees' report in April, the net present value of the unfunded liability of Medicare was $42.8 trillion. The comparable balance sheet liability for Social Security is $20.5 trillion.

Were American policy makers to have the benefit of transparent financial statements prepared the way public companies must report their pension liabilities, they would see clearly the magnitude of the future borrowing that these liabilities imply. Borrowing on this scale could eclipse the capacity of global capital markets—and bankrupt not only the programs themselves but the entire federal government."

For more:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887323353204578127374039087636.html

Once foreigners start to believe that America will stop repaying its debt, they will stop lending to us of course. Subsequently, we will be in a world of trouble moving forward.
11  General Politics / Political Debate / Re: Alcohol Deaths Outnumber Firearm Murders, So Should We Bring Back Prohibition? on: March 08, 2013, 01:48:45 am
Alcohol Deaths Outnumber Firearm Murders, So Should We Bring Back Prohibition?

Banning alcohol will not reduce the number of fire arm deaths.  Neither will banning movies, hip hop, or anything else other than guns.

Banning alcohol did not reduce the use of alcohol, so what are you trying to get at?

That's a lie.  Banning alcohol did reduce the use of alcohol.  What I'm trying to get at is you don't have any idea what you are talking about.  Actually I'm not trying.  I just proved it.

The conclusion of a peer-reviewed paper in the American Economic Review:

"Changes in consumption during Prohibition were modest given the change in price. This suggests that legal deterrents had little ef- fect on limiting consumption outside of their effect on price. Social pressure and respect for the law did not go far in reducing consumption during Prohibition."

Source: http://www.tomfeiling.com/archive/AlcoholConsumptionDuringProhibition.pdf

Quote
I'm in favor of disarming citizens in the same way Denmark, Sweden, France, Germany, and any number of other pleasant civilized countries disarmed their citizenry.  If you want to implement Soviet policies that is your choice.  But that doesn't mean we are going to support you.

So you favor disarming the American people in the exact same way the Soviets disarmed Russians and sought to disarm Americans. Those who seek to burn the second amendment are enemies of the Constitution.
12  General Politics / Economics / Re: The extent of inequality in the US on: March 07, 2013, 11:21:15 am
Older people remember what it was like when the top marginal tax rate was 70%, and even middle class folks paid rates higher than the top marginal tax rate today. They remember what it was like when Big Government was completely out of control with inflation in the double-digits, unemployment in the double-digits, shortages for gasoline because of price ceilings, etc.

The reason why so many younger people favor increased taxation and more Big Government that taxes-and-spends like crazy is because they've yet to experience THEIR tax rates going through the roof to fund Big Government. If you think the tax increase that happened in January is where it ends, that is not the case if most Democrats get their way in the midterms next year. Congressional Republicans and the few remaining conservative Democrats are the only reason why we have yet to return to out-of-control Big Government reminiscent of what we saw in the 1970s.

What does any of that have to do with the subject of this thread?

That's the effect reality does to conservative hacks. They are unable to process it, so they crash and start mindlessly repeating irrelevant talking points.

Are you offering a way to change the current level of income distribution that does not involve more intervention from the government? The market is diverse and unbiased. There is no committee of politicians or bureaucrats deciding how income and wealth ends up being distributed. For better or worse, market forces have largely determined the current outcome. That is a heck of a lot more fair than crony committees determining who gets what with respect to resources.

My point is that more intervention will do more harm than good. The average person does not want to go back to Jimmy Carter's heyday just because "the top 1%" will only earn so much more than the average person due to excessive taxation on everybody. The average person would rather stick with the current level of income and wealth distribution than go back to being taxed to death and living with double-digit inflation.
13  General Politics / Political Debate / Re: Alcohol Deaths Outnumber Firearm Murders, So Should We Bring Back Prohibition? on: March 07, 2013, 03:16:29 am
Oops, I edited Politico's post instead of responding to it, by accident. Sorry.

In any case, it's a combination of comparing apples vs. oranges + cherry-picking statistics.

It's about bringing perspective to the national debate on gun control.

No ifs, ands or buts about it: Alcohol kills more people than firearms. In other words, calling for greater regulation of firearms is as absurd as calling for greater regulation on alcohol. Calling for one but not the other is inconsistent no matter how you slice or dice it.
14  General Politics / Political Debate / Re: Alcohol Deaths Outnumber Firearm Murders, So Should We Bring Back Prohibition? on: March 07, 2013, 03:12:23 am
Why don't you just shut up...

www.youtube.com/watch?v=mXk2YTXKBFo#t=00m35s
15  General Politics / Political Debate / Re: Alcohol Deaths Outnumber Firearm Murders, So Should We Bring Back Prohibition? on: March 06, 2013, 03:16:19 pm
Of course, the point is that alcohol kills far more people than propelled bullets do. More people commit vehicular manslaughter under the influence of alcohol than the number of people who use a firearm to commit murder. Over 100 people were killed in the Station nightclub fire in 2003, and alcohol was a contributing factor. Do we react to these statistics, to tragedies like the Station nightclub fire, by calling for a ban on alcohol? Of course not.

The point is to bring perspective to an emotional debate.
16  General Politics / Political Debate / Re: Alcohol Deaths Outnumber Firearm Murders, So Should We Bring Back Prohibition? on: March 06, 2013, 03:13:53 pm
Alcohol Deaths Outnumber Firearm Murders, So Should We Bring Back Prohibition?

Banning alcohol will not reduce the number of fire arm deaths.  Neither will banning movies, hip hop, or anything else other than guns.

Banning alcohol did not reduce the use of alcohol, so what are you trying to get at?

BTW, are you in favor of disarming the American people in the same way that the Soviets disarmed the Russian people?
17  General Politics / Economics / Re: The extent of inequality in the US on: March 06, 2013, 03:04:00 pm
Older people remember what it was like when the top marginal tax rate was 70%, and even middle class folks paid rates higher than the top marginal tax rate today. They remember what it was like when Big Government was completely out of control with inflation in the double-digits, unemployment in the double-digits, shortages for gasoline because of price ceilings, etc.

The reason why so many younger people favor increased taxation and more Big Government that taxes-and-spends like crazy is because they've yet to experience THEIR tax rates going through the roof to fund Big Government. If you think the tax increase that happened in January is where it ends, that is not the case if most Democrats get their way in the midterms next year. Congressional Republicans and the few remaining conservative Democrats are the only reason why we have yet to return to out-of-control Big Government reminiscent of what we saw in the 1970s.
18  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: Rubio: Federal Marriage Amendment "Steps on the Rights of States" on: March 03, 2013, 07:35:38 pm
I remember what happened to perceptions of gays and gay rights when AIDS started in America in the early 1980s. If society sees a new and deadly STD, one even worse and more contagious than AIDS, come onto the gay scene, all of the current progress will be obliterated. Signs are discouraging. For example, drug-resistant gonorrhea is starting to spread particularly among gay males. Infections of almost all STDs are on the rise with respect to gay males and females who engage in anal sex. It is all quite reminiscient of the late 1970s, so I will not be the least bit surprised if another killer STD is around the corner, the next 5-10 years, if current trends continue.

The worst part: A lot of pain and suffering could be avoided if everybody properly used condoms all of the time.

Wouldn't it be in society's best interest then to have an institution that reduces promiscuity and promotes gay monogamy? Wouldn't the best way to reduce this hypothetical disease be to promote stable, long-term relationships amongst all couples?

On second thought, don't answer that. I wouldn't want rational thought get in the way of your paranoid delusions that gays are going to inflict a great plague of death and suffering on the nation because that's the way Jesus wants it.

I support gay marriage for exactly the reasons you have outlined, and because it is only fair to provide equal rights to everybody regardless of who they love. I am just saying that support for gay rights and the current positive perception of gays can easily turn upside down in a hurry if we see a sequel to the early '80s AIDS epidemic. Nobody imagined AIDS in the late 1970s and look at what happened. Now many people are repeating the same behavior we saw in the late 1970s. We know what lots of risky behavior can lead to now, so we should not be surprised when another deadly STD comes onto the scene.

Lesbians have nothing to worry about, of course.
19  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: Rubio: Federal Marriage Amendment "Steps on the Rights of States" on: March 02, 2013, 11:59:56 pm
This one truly should just be left to the states. Can't the gay community accept that some places just will not allow them to marry based on natural law and moral principals ever. It is a contract and the federal government needs to just step off and respect the states for once. Sorry Clarence you're on the wrong side of this issue.

Doesn't matter if he's wrong or right, he's on the winning side.

No he's not on the winning side. Eternity will judge this one vastly differently than He did racial civil rights.

Not 'Eternity' (whatever that is), history, and all signs point to gay rights being here to stay. Provide any shred of evidence suggesting a reversal from the present course.

I remember what happened to perceptions of gays and gay rights when AIDS started in America in the early 1980s. If society sees a new and deadly STD, one even worse and more contagious than AIDS, come onto the gay scene, all of the current progress will be obliterated. Signs are discouraging. For example, drug-resistant gonorrhea is starting to spread particularly among gay males. Infections of almost all STDs are on the rise with respect to gay males and females who engage in anal sex. It is all quite reminiscient of the late 1970s, so I will not be the least bit surprised if another killer STD is around the corner, the next 5-10 years, if current trends continue.

The worst part: A lot of pain and suffering could be avoided if everybody properly used condoms all of the time.
20  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Serious Question: Why Is Christie Obese? on: March 02, 2013, 08:51:04 pm
We all have friends and family who are overweight/obese, so obviously none of us are judging Christie for being obese. That said, why is Christie obese? Does he have a metabolic disorder? What kind of lifestyle does he lead?

These are questions that will come up if he runs, so I am looking for facts and/or speculation.
21  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: Romney Continues to Burnish His Conservative Credentials on: March 02, 2013, 08:43:24 pm
Romney will never run again that's all I'm going to say on this matter.

"Nixon will never run for anything again."

- Everybody in December 1962
22  General Politics / Political Debate / Re: Opinion of Friedman's Negative Income Tax on: March 02, 2013, 08:41:24 pm
Freedom Solution. Simplifying the welfare state is an excellent idea.

This.

I would add that Friedman's NIT still promotes getting off welfare for those who want to achieve more in their life. There is no incentive not to work, unlike welfare prior to 1996.
23  General Politics / Political Debate / Re: Opinion of lifetime Secret Service protection for former Presidents on: March 02, 2013, 08:39:43 pm
Limited protection for VPs, but I think POTUSs need lifetime protection. We cannot allow an easy target for terrorists.
24  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Question for Republicans Only: If the 2016 Race Boils Down to Bush Vs. Romney on: March 02, 2013, 08:37:39 pm
Suppose Christie, Rubio and Ryan choose not to run. The only prolific fundraisers end up being Jeb Bush and Mitt Romney, who decides "third time's the charm" after deciding Jeb Bush should not be able to run away with the nomination (Romney could highlight how George W. Bush overshadowed his run in 2012, and he is absolutely convinced that Jeb Bush cannot win the presidency, so he has reluctantly decided to run again to prevent another Republican loss).

If this happens, who would you back in the primaries?
25  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: Romney Continues to Burnish His Conservative Credentials on: March 02, 2013, 08:27:17 pm
How is anything he said conservative?

Watch the interview tomorrow. He's also chosen to make CPAC his first public speech since the election.

Quote
On the other hand, isn't that what modern conservatism is about?  Lamenting how rich white men don't control 100% of the power in America.  

No, it's lamenting the economic and cultural decline of America. Rubio, Jindal, Cain, etc. are proof that race has nothing to do with it, but please continue to spew Democratic myths.

The Republican Party caused this manufactured crisis.  They are agents of economic decline.  \

Yeah, this nonsense was ALMOST a worn out joke by 2012, but it will be deader than dead in 2016 after eight years of decline under Obama *rolls eyes*
Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 6 ... 196


Login with username, password and session length

Logout

Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines