Obama's "bitter" remark

[JolietJake]

Anyone else following the shit thats be stirred up over the remark Obama made, about some people in the US being bitter? Clinton is playing it like it was an insult, which it wasn't. That isn't the way it was meant at all and it's obvious if you read the remark carefully. Plus, there are a lot of people who are bitter, over things like immigration especially. I don't see where he was off the mark, at least by much.

[Msut77]

Anyone else following the shit thats be stirred up over the remark Obama made, about some people in the US being bitter? Clinton is playing it like it was an insult, which it wasn't. That isn't the way it was meant at all and it's obvious if you read the remark carefully. Plus, there are a lot of people who are bitter, over things like immigration especially. I don't see where he was off the mark, at least by much.

Hillary Clinton is like a drowning person clinging to anything they can to prevent from going under.

[rodeojones903]

I don't see where he was off the mark, at least by much.

That's the problem thought. There is some truth to that statement, but it makes him come off as an Elitist.

[JolietJake]

That's the problem thought. There is some truth to that statement, but it makes him come off as an Elitist.
What Clinton is framing it as makes him sound like an elitist.

[looploop]

"And it's not surprising then they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren't like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations," he also said."

Noting that they're bitter by itself certainly isn't noteworthy(I mean, come on. They lost their jobs! They're obviously going to be bitter about it). But assuming that he really did say this as well... This kind of sweeping generalization sounds pretty condescending to me.

[HotShotX]

Hillary: How dare he! He said you were BITTER! He's an elitist out of touch with Americans!

Americans: We ARE bitter. Thanks for finally listening to us now that your political opponent got to us first.

“You know, my dad took me out behind the cottage that my grandfather built on a little lake called Lake Winola outside of Scranton and taught be how to shoot when I was a little girl,” she said.

AND THEN SNIPERS CAME OUT FROM EVERYWHERE, THE GROUND WAS AFLAME WITH SNIPER FIRE, AND MY FATHER RUSHED US OUT OF THE PLANE AND INTO OUR HOME!

Seriously though, who gives a shit? If I cared about who could throw the most drama into my life I'd stay at home everyday between 10am-1pm and watch the shitty acting and "who's banging who" storyline of soap operas.

Clinton's got her spokespeople making statements like "Superdelegates needs to evaluate these "bitter" remarks and think twice about who to support", like one little comment is going to overturn the millions of votes and stances on issues don't mean a damn thing in the election.

Get back to the issues kids, BOTH of you.

~HotShotX

[JolietJake]

Noting that they're bitter by itself certainly isn't noteworthy(I mean, come on. They lost their jobs! They're obviously going to be bitter about it). But assuming that he really did say this as well... This kind of sweeping generalization sounds pretty condescending to me.Depends on where you live and what people you're around most. Here in the south, he pretty much hit it dead on. All i ever hear is "damn immigrants, damn foreigners taking our jobs, fucking moslims (yes they pronounce it with an O)." Sounds pretty bitter to me. I won't even go into the religion or gun part of his remark, those are both pretty much ingrained at birth around here. You'd think that Jesus was a gun toting member of the NRA.

I think he was trying to expose an ugly part of our society and instead Clinton is using it as political ammunition.

[Ikohn4ever]

i like how McCain calls him an elitist too, that fool owns 8 houses a real man of the people

[fatherofcaitlyn]

i like how McCain calls him an elitist too, that fool owns 8 houses a real man of the people

McCain has contact with hard-working Americans every day. They're his staff. Most of them are documented.

[camoor]

"And it's not surprising then they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren't like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations," he also said."

Why did he mix guns in with those BS issues. Gun rights are serious business, any Dem that doesn't think so is going to take a beating in the polls.

As for bitter ppl clinging to religion... *cough*Wright*cough*

[bigdaddy]

Clinton is a bitch. She lies to us and just "miss-spoke", but is trying to make it seem that he hates the middle and lower class.

And all Wright said was "God Damn America!", which frankly I agree with.

[Ikohn4ever]

Why did he mix guns in with those BS issues. Gun rights are serious business, any Dem that doesn't think so is going to take a beating in the polls.

As for bitter ppl clinging to religion... *cough*Wright*cough*


cause its wedge issue that people cling to because its easier for politicians to focus on that than real issues that people need to be discussed. Like this bitter debate is taking away from Iraq, the Economy, Education, Health Care, Etc.

[JolietJake]

Why did he mix guns in with those BS issues. Gun rights are serious business, any Dem that doesn't think so is going to take a beating in the polls.

As for bitter ppl clinging to religion... *cough*Wright*cough*I still say it's a non issue, but i'm not going to get into that in this thread.

[thrustbucket]

Clinton(s) are pandering liars, and always have been. They will say whatever is popular at the time. I have been convinced for years that the Clinton's seriously have no idea what they really do believe or want, because their belief system is now rooted on polls.

Obama's statement was very poorly chosen. But he, and especially his wife, continue to make eyebrow raising statements like this that seem to be slowly pulling down the curtain to reveal what they really think about this country and just what flavor of "change" they want.

Just more of the same from both, ultimately just causing more depression about how seriously poor our choices are this election.

[mykevermin]

Why is it that salaciously irrelevant stuff like this and Rev. Wright get airtime, yet we never have any discourse on the numerous and consistent gaffes that John McCain has made that expose him to be even more clueless about the various tenuous situations in the middle east than the sitting president, and show him to be wholly unqualified for the job of President?

It's as if I were applying for a job where I have to understand C++ programming (and I don't), and I'm competing with other people; yet the boss of the company is more concerned about my competition's lack of a lapel pin than my gross incompetence. Christ it's fuckin' irritating.

[HotShotX]

Why is it that salaciously irrelevant stuff like this and Rev. Wright get airtime, yet we never have any discourse on the numerous and consistent gaffes that John McCain has made that expose him to be even more clueless about the various tenuous situations in the middle east than the sitting president, and show him to be wholly unqualified for the job of President?

It's as if I were applying for a job where I have to understand C++ programming (and I don't), and I'm competing with other people; yet the boss of the company is more concerned about my competition's lack of a lapel pin than my gross incompetence. Christ it's fuckin' irritating.

If mykevermin =/ lapel pin
Then mykevermin == terrorist
End If
End Program Retarded Conservative Logic

~HotShotX

[JolietJake]

Why is it that salaciously irrelevant stuff like this and Rev. Wright get airtime, yet we never have any discourse on the numerous and consistent gaffes that John McCain has made that expose him to be even more clueless about the various tenuous situations in the middle east than the sitting president, and show him to be wholly unqualified for the job of President?

It's as if I were applying for a job where I have to understand C++ programming (and I don't), and I'm competing with other people; yet the boss of the company is more concerned about my competition's lack of a lapel pin than my gross incompetence. Christ it's fuckin' irritating.I think it's because everyone is assuming that the democrats are going to win this election, Obama is the top contender so they're dissecting everything he says. They seem to assume that McCain isn't worth covering unless he says something just way out there.

[mykevermin]

:lol: at HotShot.

Joliet, what in the world makes you assume any Democrat has an election in the bag? After 2004, there should be no assumption that a Democrat, or the Democrat party in general, can't catastrophically fuck up a "sure thing" anymore. Don't doubt the ferocity of the Republican party to make shit up (Swift Vets) and stay on point so consistently that they get the message into the media (i.e., Dan Rather's forged docs being a major issue, rather than Bush's comfy-cozy National Guard service), and don't doubt the Democrat party's stupidity.

[HotShotX]

The only reason that the Democrats are getting the most airtime right now is because there's still some competition going on between them. McCain's already got the nomination, so I'm sure he's going to get a shitload of airtime when the General Election comes around.

For right now though, it's all about the Democratic Primary, at least for as long as Hillary continues to whine about everything. :)

But hey, it could be worse, imagine if neither party had a bit of competition going on and it wasn't time for the General Election.

That's right.....Ralph Nader 24/7 on the news, simply because he can continuously argue with himself.

~HotShotX

[daroga]

Why is it that salaciously irrelevant stuff like this and Rev. Wright get airtime, yet we never have any discourse on the numerous and consistent gaffes that John McCain has made that expose him to be even more clueless about the various tenuous situations in the middle east than the sitting president, and show him to be wholly unqualified for the job of President?

It's as if I were applying for a job where I have to understand C++ programming (and I don't), and I'm competing with other people; yet the boss of the company is more concerned about my competition's lack of a lapel pin than my gross incompetence. Christ it's fuckin' irritating.I think you'll see stuff on McCain once the Democrats have a nominee. He's not particularly exciting news right now. The Democratic race and stupid little arguments like this make for better ratings.

[JolietJake]

:lol: at HotShot.

Joliet, what in the world makes you assume any Democrat has an election in the bag? After 2004, there should be no assumption that a Democrat, or the Democrat party in general, can't catastrophically fuck up a "sure thing" anymore. Don't doubt the ferocity of the Republican party to make shit up (Swift Vets) and stay on point so consistently that they get the message into the media (i.e., Dan Rather's forged docs being a major issue, rather than Bush's comfy-cozy National Guard service), and don't doubt the Democrat party's stupidity.Did i say that I thought so anywhere in that post? Many people do though.

[RAMSTORIA]

:lol: at HotShot.

Joliet, what in the world makes you assume any Democrat has an election in the bag? After 2004, there should be no assumption that a Democrat, or the Democrat party in general, can't catastrophically fuck up a "sure thing" anymore. Don't doubt the ferocity of the Republican party to make shit up (Swift Vets) and stay on point so consistently that they get the message into the media (i.e., Dan Rather's forged docs being a major issue, rather than Bush's comfy-cozy National Guard service), and don't doubt the Democrat party's stupidity.

what i think will be interesting is how mccain fairs with independent voters in the general election. in years past hes been a pretty favorable guy for middle-of-the-roaders... lets not forget it wasnt that long ago that there was lots of talk about mccain switching parties. but with the republican nomination and him supposedly changing his tune on some conservative issues (ie: immigration) well see of those voters still back him.

i think mccain is the one guy the dems didnt want to get the nod, because of that appeal he used to have. and theres no way that the dems have this election locked up.

on topic though. obama needs to watch these kinds of remarks. personally, i think it was... odd... but i can see how middle america might view it as negative. and remember how bush won in 2004? thats right, middle america.

[KingBroly]

I see Obama as someone who just doesn't get it on a lot of things. The American people being bitter...anyone wanna take a shot? One word. Government.

Oh, and Hillary Clinton...I'd rather listen to a nail on a chalkboard for an hour than listen to her speak.

[davidjinfla]

That is what Obama was talking about. People in small towns who have lost their job for the last 25 years and government has let them down. I urge all of you to watch "Idiocracy" it's a movie that while not great in style has a message about how everyone is getting stupider and stupider. The problem with the "bitter" remark is once again the main stream media keeps diluting a thoughtful answer, off the cuff, down to one paragraph and then distorts that.

Two great quotes from the movie-"it's got electrolytes" referring to why everyone uses sports drinks for everything water is used for, and "you talk like a $$$" to anyone who tries to express complex thought and a robust vocabulary.

[thrustbucket]

Why is it that salaciously irrelevant stuff like this and Rev. Wright get airtime, yet we never have any discourse on the numerous and consistent gaffes that John McCain has made that expose him to be even more clueless about the various tenuous situations in the middle east than the sitting president, and show him to be wholly unqualified for the job of President?


If you want to analyze each candidate on a variety of issues to the same extent, I think it's safe to say that all three of them are "wholly unqualified for the job of President", on many levels.

All we have is a popularity contest with no substance to look at.

[davidjinfla]

I think they all three are qualified by the fact they are a native born and 35years of age. Is there anyone else you would rather have running that didn't run or didn't make it through the primaries?

[thrustbucket]

That is what Obama was talking about. People in small towns who have lost their job for the last 25 years and government has let them down.

I think the guy you are responding to was saying that people are bitter about government interfering with our lives too much, not bitter about them not interfering enough.

What, if anything, should the government do about small towns losing jobs?

I honestly don't know anyone, or of anyone, that sits around and bitches in their small town for 25 years about jobs not being available. And if I did, I'd tell them to get a grip on reality and adapt. I certainly don't know anyone that honestly expects the government to make sure there are jobs available for them no matter where they live.... that's silly.

[davidjinfla]

I live in a mid size city our government gives tax breaks and bribes to get jobs here. As for Federal Gov't they should stop giving tax breaks and bribes to ship jobs away. Help these people with re-education tax credits so they can learn new skills, subsidize their college if need be, put them to work by fixing nations infrastructure. The problem as I see it is Government has left them alone for to long and only helped out the companies that don't need it.

[VanillaGorilla]

I love the grade school mentality of "But teacher, HE does it all the time, why are you punishing me and not him!?" that people have about Obama.

[Sarang01]

I think they all three are qualified by the fact they are a native born and 35years of age. Is there anyone else you would rather have running that didn't run or didn't make it through the primaries?

Ron Paul. Period. The current people running are Globalist assholes who have no loyalty and wish to send it down the river, the same goes to a lesser extent for most of Congress.
If any of the asswipes there, Democrat or Republican, gave a shit, they'd pull us out of Iraq asap for one and make sure any companies selling their products here still have to pay taxes, including Halliburton. Seriously if they say anything about Iraq and staying there, they're either an idiot or want to help deliver the kiss of death to our economy.
Any people like Paul, Gravel, Kucinich and others who actually care about getting out of Iraq can stay but the rest should be voted out and replaced with Independents as most Demos and Pubs will just give bullshit lipservice on Iraq.

[Veritas1204]

Ron Paul. Period.
The current people running are Globalist assholes who have no loyalty and wish to send it down the river, the same goes to a lesser extent for most of Congress.
If any of the asswipes there, Democrat or Republican, gave a shit, they'd pull us out of Iraq asap for one and make sure any companies selling their products here still have to pay taxes, including Halliburton. Seriously if they say anything about Iraq and staying there, they're either an idiot or want to help deliver the kiss of death to our economy.
Any people like Paul, Gravel, Kucinich and others who actually care about getting out of Iraq can stay but the rest should be voted out and replaced with Independents as most Demos and Pubs will just give bullshit lipservice on Iraq.


EPIC.

FAIL.

[JolietJake]

Ron Paul. Period. The current people running are Globalist assholes who have no loyalty and wish to send it down the river, the same goes to a lesser extent for most of Congress.
If any of the asswipes there, Democrat or Republican, gave a shit, they'd pull us out of Iraq asap for one and make sure any companies selling their products here still have to pay taxes, including Halliburton. Seriously if they say anything about Iraq and staying there, they're either an idiot or want to help deliver the kiss of death to our economy.
Any people like Paul, Gravel, Kucinich and others who actually care about getting out of Iraq can stay but the rest should be voted out and replaced with Independents as most Demos and Pubs will just give bullshit lipservice on Iraq.
You know we can't just "pull out" of Iraq tomorrow. Something that large takes planning and strategy (unlike the war apparently...), if you pull to many people out at a time, then the ones that haven't been yet are left with less protection. Ron Paul acted like he'd have everyone home within a week, thats just ridiculous.

[thrustbucket]

Ron Paul. Period. The current people running are Globalist assholes who have no loyalty and wish to send it down the river, the same goes to a lesser extent for most of Congress.


I mostly agreed with this much of what you said.

But seriously, as right as Ron Paul is on many issues, his total anti-foreign war/foreign policy of any kind stance has scared most people away from him. If he were smart, he would have compromised at least that, and he might have a shot.

He needs to take a lesson from Obama and Clinton, and tell the people more of what they want to hear, rather than try to convince the people they are wrong and he is right.

[Sarang01]

I mostly agreed with this much of what you said.

But seriously, as right as Ron Paul is on many issues, his total anti-foreign war/foreign policy of any kind stance has scared most people away from him. If he were smart, he would have compromised at least that, and he might have a shot.

He needs to take a lesson from Obama and Clinton, and tell the people more of what they want to hear, rather than try to convince the people they are wrong and he is right.

At least you recognize Clinton and the other two have no loyalty to America and are stabbing us in the back.
Look I don't mind the idea of pulling out of Iraq while making sure to get our equipment out but past that I think we need this done asap. In a war that's bringing us toward bullshit like the Amero because it's crashing the dollar since we're not "paying" for the war now. Or better yet I think we should all be taxed for the war. Get a bunch of people in who would do that then miracles would happen because NO ONE wants to pay for this fucking war.
I say we take the bill for Iraq and make BUSH, GE, Westinghouse and others who've profited pay for it. They're War Profiteers and some of the foulest kind of scum.
What do you want for Foreign Policy? I think we should respect other countries independence and stop letting the CIA be hatchetmen for big multinational Corporations which place these countries into economic slavery. This is done by the World Bank setting up loans for them that can't possibly be paid back and when they default presto. Oh the leader doesn't want that? Let's kill him and put up a pliable puppet.
The solution for the entire world or rather the average citizen is self sustainability and it starts by people everywhere being able to take advantage of renewable energy. This includes Wind Energy, Solar Energy, Tidal Energy, possibly Geothermal Energy and burning things like Switchgrass and Hemp possibly. Basically almost all of these, in one way or another, one can set up something to create the electricity in the home or soon I believe this will be possible. Energy independence with NO cost for everyone would be the first real step towards true freedom. Right now in case you don't already know, Financial Freedom is one of the biggest priorities. Look how much big Oil can jerk around everyone because of their dependence and the cost they now pay.

[camoor]

He needs to take a lesson from Obama and Clinton, and tell the people more of what they want to hear, rather than try to convince the people they are wrong and he is right.

Spoken like a true neo-con.

[fatherofcaitlyn]

You know we can't just "pull out" of Iraq tomorrow. Something that large takes planning and strategy (unlike the war apparently...), if you pull to many people out at a time, then the ones that haven't been yet are left with less protection. Ron Paul acted like he'd have everyone home within a week, thats just ridiculous.

Sure you can. Rig all of the equipment you can't move out of the country with explosives to be set off remotely. At night, have everybody move north or south out of the country. Kuwait is a friendly country to the south. Turkey is a friendly country to the north. The northern part of Iraq is relatively secure compared to the Sunni Triangle. When everybody is clear of rigged equipment, set off the explosives and let the local warlord or government services deal with that problem. By dawn, everybody who wants out of Iraq can be gone.

Sure, it's a crazy idea and it is a full retreat, but it is possible.

[Don Chubo]

to make shit up (Swift Vets)

And just what did they make up?

[mykevermin]

Nothin' at all, man. Believe it all. John Kerry didn't earn a Purple Heart. He was sittin' at home, watchin' Rowan and Martin's "Laugh-In" and eating Mallo-mars.

:roll:

[fatherofcaitlyn]

And just what did they make up?

You know damn well Kerry didn't get shot right.

Bush, if he had been in Vietnam, could have shown Kerry how to get shot correctly.

[Don Chubo]

Nothin' at all, man. Believe it all. John Kerry didn't earn a Purple Heart. He was sittin' at home, watchin' Rowan and Martin's "Laugh-In" and eating Mallo-mars.

:roll:

So you have nothing useful to back up what you say? Interesting since you've tried to chide others for the same.

[Don Chubo]

As far as what Daddy O said, it was incredibly stupid. For him or for any of the candidates to try to present themselves as an Everyman is ridiculous, and anyone with a rational eye can see it's pandering.

[mykevermin]

So you have nothing useful to back up what you say? Interesting since you've tried to chide others for the same.

I'm busy writin' my dissertation, darlin'. Unless you wanna give me a credentialed Ph.D. for posting here, then you can wait your fuckin' turn.

K?

[Dead of Knight]

Why is it that salaciously irrelevant stuff like this and Rev. Wright get airtime, yet we never have any discourse on the numerous and consistent gaffes that John McCain has made that expose him to be even more clueless about the various tenuous situations in the middle east than the sitting president, and show him to be wholly unqualified for the job of President?

It's as if I were applying for a job where I have to understand C++ programming (and I don't), and I'm competing with other people; yet the boss of the company is more concerned about my competition's lack of a lapel pin than my gross incompetence. Christ it's fuckin' irritating.

/Thread on the first page.

This is why I'm not really following Obama vs. Clinton anymore. Total bunch of bullshit.

[thrustbucket]

At least you recognize Clinton and the other two have no loyalty to America and are stabbing us in the back.
Look I don't mind the idea of pulling out of Iraq while making sure to get our equipment out but past that I think we need this done asap. In a war that's bringing us toward bullshit like the Amero because it's crashing the dollar since we're not "paying" for the war now. Or better yet I think we should all be taxed for the war. Get a bunch of people in who would do that then miracles would happen because NO ONE wants to pay for this fucking war.
I say we take the bill for Iraq and make BUSH, GE, Westinghouse and others who've profited pay for it. They're War Profiteers and some of the foulest kind of scum.
What do you want for Foreign Policy? I think we should respect other countries independence and stop letting the CIA be hatchetmen for big multinational Corporations which place these countries into economic slavery. This is done by the World Bank setting up loans for them that can't possibly be paid back and when they default presto. Oh the leader doesn't want that? Let's kill him and put up a pliable puppet.
The solution for the entire world or rather the average citizen is self sustainability and it starts by people everywhere being able to take advantage of renewable energy. This includes Wind Energy, Solar Energy, Tidal Energy, possibly Geothermal Energy and burning things like Switchgrass and Hemp possibly. Basically almost all of these, in one way or another, one can set up something to create the electricity in the home or soon I believe this will be possible. Energy independence with NO cost for everyone would be the first real step towards true freedom. Right now in case you don't already know, Financial Freedom is one of the biggest priorities. Look how much big Oil can jerk around everyone because of their dependence and the cost they now pay.

I mostly agree with you. The problem is, I believe the conspiracy runs deeper. The dollar taking a dive is no accident. There is a purpose to it. If that purpose is the Amero, I don't think who we elect is going to stop that from happening at this point.

Then again, I have begun to believe the entire election process is nothing but a distractive amusement for the masses. It really doesn't function any more. I am just not sure when exactly it ceased to.

Spoken like a true neo-con.

Interesting. I looked up definitions of what "neo-con" means, and I can't find any solid definition. I don't recall ever signing up for this "neo-con" membership. And since I don't know what it is, and I don't know what was about my statement that made it sound like it came from a "neo-con"...... I can only surmise that "neo-con" used in that context, means "truth".

If you believe that my statement is false, please cite reasons for believing otherwise rather than resorting to name calling.

[Sarang01]

You know it's funny Thrust. You seem to understand things others like Myke seem oblivious too.

I honestly can't understand camoor though. I thought he was my $$$$a so I figured he could dig some of what you say but he snipes you? WTF camoor, this guy actually gets some of it. Dude how can YOU, a guy who knows wtf is up, be like that?! X-(

[Don Chubo]

I'm busy writin' my dissertation, darlin'. Unless you wanna give me a credentialed Ph.D. for posting here, then you can wait your fuckin' turn.

K?

Attention all:

The "I'm busy with something else so I can't back up what I say although I'll get on someone else's nuts for the same thing" gambit is now allowed.

[mykevermin]

As if the "I can't validate my own claims and the other guy's busy, so that makes me right" claim is equally valid?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swift_Boat_Veterans_for_Truth#Truth_of_allegations

Don't worry about the problems inherent in wikipedia, because you can visit all of the citations. The only people who have any potential to verify the claims of SVFT (that is, those people whose claims could potentially matter, unlike yours or mine since neither of us served in Vietnam) that ACTUALLY verify the claims of SVFT are, strangely enough, SVFT themselves. You won't find a single person outside of that organization who can verify a thing - yet ample media research, ample Vietnam veterans (including those not paid by GOP or DNC orgs to make claims!), and even John McCain himself (who experienced this kind of political attack himself - what a wimp, only spending 5 years as a POW!) repudiate SVFT.

They're a group of bullies who find nothing but contradictions when they look outside their inner circle, find plenty of inconsistencies when they look inside their inner circle - yet nevertheless, folks continue to believe every word they said, as if the claims of a PAID individual with a VENDETTA and VESTED INTEREST in defeating Kerry's campaign can be considered reliable (particularly when, I remind you again, there is nothing to support the SVFT claims other than SVFT themselves).

I'm sure I didn't convince you of anything, because we all know John Kerry earned his purple heart from a splinter he got, and his silver star was for saving his MRE desserts for his CO for two months of straight deployment. :roll: Gimmie a fuckin' break.

[thrustbucket]

They're a group of bullies who find nothing but contradictions when they look outside their inner circle, find plenty of inconsistencies when they look inside their inner circle - yet nevertheless, folks continue to believe every word they said,


Had you been talking about political parties, I'd have felt those words were inspired.

[Don Chubo]

Actually, I was pointing out your hyprocrisy - I think you missed the point there.

As far as your Wikipedia citation, I did look at the sources, and to no surprise, there were a few Leftist ones (especially not surprising if you consider Wikipedia's slant in the first place)such as the Huffington Post and the New York Times. They would lie for their side of the cause as easily as you say the SVFT members would.

And did I say I believed everything SVFT said? Uh, no - you inferred that. Were Kerry's wounds legitimate? News flash - I have no idea. Would I tend to disbelieve what he says about his Vietnam service? Given the Winter Soldier "hearings", the testimony he gave to the Committee On Foreign Relations, and his medal-tossing, yeah.

And just so I can also end my post by being hip and edgy, gimme a fuckin' break!

[mykevermin]

thrust: heh.

(especially not surprising if you consider Wikipedia's slant in the first place)

Wow. Just...wow. wikipedia is never a perfect resource due to its nature, but its nature of democratically created information with equal opportunity for editing by any and all being claimed to have a bias (which we presume, given your use of it as a negative point if the site, to be a "left-leaning bias") shows how desperately you cling to your ideologies.

What *doesn't* have a left-leaning bias? The way y'all have reacted over the past few weeks (and years in many cases), the following are all insidious merchants and compatriots of the vast left-wing conspiracy:

The entire news media
All scientific research that doesn't support conservative ideology
Online databases that can be edited by anyone

...what's left at this point? What *doesn't* have a liberal bias? At what point might you look at the world around you, see information that contradicts your worldview, and stop criticizing the world for failing to meet *your* needs?

[Msut77]

So you have nothing useful to back up what you say? Interesting since you've tried to chide others for the same.

I guess you do not hear much news under your bridge.

Are you capable of doing a google search? You should not whine because you are completely ignorant and no one will do your homework for you.

[Don Chubo]

You're calling me a troll while you engage in trollery. That'd be brilliant if it wasn't completely stupid.

[Msut77]

You're calling me a troll while you engage in trollery. That'd be brilliant if it wasn't completely stupid.

Pointing out an ignoramus is not trolling.

[SpazX]

Heavy Hitter, you remind me that no matter what I support I should remember not to do it as blindly as you do. For that, I thank you.

[Don Chubo]

thrust: heh.



Wow. Just...wow. wikipedia is never a perfect resource due to its nature, but its nature of democratically created information with equal opportunity for editing by any and all being claimed to have a bias (which we presume, given your use of it as a negative point if the site, to be a "left-leaning bias") shows how desperately you cling to your ideologies.

What *doesn't* have a left-leaning bias? The way y'all have reacted over the past few weeks (and years in many cases), the following are all insidious merchants and compatriots of the vast left-wing conspiracy:

The entire news media
All scientific research that doesn't support conservative ideology
Online databases that can be edited by anyone

...what's left at this point? What *doesn't* have a liberal bias? At what point might you look at the world around you, see information that contradicts your worldview, and stop criticizing the world for failing to meet *your* needs?

Yeah, I'd say Wiki has a Leftist slant. Guess you'd say otherwise.

As far as the rest of what you wrote, you're taking 2 other sources I listed (which are Leftist no matter how you slice it), and then making blanket statements that no one said.

As far as your last paragraph goes, I appreciate the heartfelt advice. Maybe you're right. Maybe I can change. Or maybe you're just talking out of your ass. I'll have to think about it.

[mykevermin]

*sigh* I'll follow along with your rambling changing of subjects while you evade defeat of each prior talking point of yours (you never did, after all, provide anything of substance, whether talking about SWFT, Obama, wiki bias, unless you consider the claim of NYT liberal bias a taken-for-granted conclusion - which it is not, outside of the editorial page).

Explain to me HOW wiki can be biased based on its very nature? If something is worded in a way you find incorrect, then edit it! That's wikipedia! The very IDEA that it is irrevocably biased is blind stupidity; wikipedia can be changed, shaped, and formed more than any individual. It's the most useful tool if you want to influence people via a neutral resource. But instead of changing it (or realizing that your worldview is slanted because you get hot n' bothered that People for the American Way are described as "progressive" instead of "liberal"), you bitch and throw a fit, and claim that, instead of your ideology being wrongheaded and idiotic, the world is against you.

That's like the ol' Republican tautology when they're in power. They get elected because people don't trust government to take care of things, and when the Republicans catastrophically fuck things up the way only Republicans can, they cite this as evidence that the government can't be trusted and Republicans must be elected to make sure that doesn't happen!

[dmaul1114]

The remark didn't bother me, but it was a poor choice of words that gave his opposition some ammo. A lot of truth in them, but lumping it with the gun and religion card (though again I agree--but I'm also definitely a bit of an elitist) isn't politically smart.

Though another story said Hillary got Jeered for bringing it up today or yesterday, so these negative attacks could be backfiring strongly on her.

[bigdaddy]

don't doubt the Democrat party's stupidity.

Well said.

The Republicans are evil, and have no fucking clue how to run a 7-11 nevermind a country, but they are evil and now how to spin shit.

[Don Chubo]

*sigh* I'll follow along with your rambling changing of subjects while you evade defeat of each prior talking point of yours (you never did, after all, provide anything of substance, whether talking about SWFT, Obama, wiki bias, unless you consider the claim of NYT liberal bias a taken-for-granted conclusion - which it is not, outside of the editorial page).

Explain to me HOW wiki can be biased based on its very nature? If something is worded in a way you find incorrect, then edit it! That's wikipedia! The very IDEA that it is irrevocably biased is blind stupidity; wikipedia can be changed, shaped, and formed more than any individual. It's the most useful tool if you want to influence people via a neutral resource. But instead of changing it (or realizing that your worldview is slanted because you get hot n' bothered that People for the American Way are described as "progressive" instead of "liberal"), you bitch and throw a fit, and claim that, instead of your ideology being wrongheaded and idiotic, the world is against you.

That's like the ol' Republican tautology when they're in power. They get elected because people don't trust government to take care of things, and when the Republicans catastrophically fuck things up the way only Republicans can, they cite this as evidence that the government can't be trusted and Republicans must be elected to make sure that doesn't happen!

It's a nice idea that anyone can edit anything they want in Wikipedia, but the true power (and therefore content) is in the hands of the handpicked Admins.

Am I happy with the Republican party these days? No, and I've said as much before. I don't know what's going on at the RNC and further up, but someone should remind them to properly represent their base.

And the only one bitching and throwing a fit is you. You blow everything out of proportion and name-call.

[Msut77]

It's a nice idea that anyone can edit anything they want in Wikipedia, but the true power (and therefore content) is in the hands of the handpicked Admins.

Am I happy with the Republican party these days? No, and I've said as much before. I don't know what's going on at the RNC and further up, but someone should remind them to properly represent their base.

And the only one bitching and throwing a fit is you. You blow everything out of proportion and name-call.

Is there anything that you do know?

Anyhoo the Republicans are certainly doing what their base wants such as continuing to support torture etc.

[thrustbucket]

Is there anything that you do know?

Anyhoo the Republicans are certainly doing what their base wants such as continuing to support torture etc.

:roll: If your going to drive-by fire bomb such silly dailykos talking points....

And Democrats continue to do what their base wants, such as unwanted babies, theological assassination, globalization, and eternally increasing government interference of our lives.

Touche.

[JolietJake]

:roll: If your going to drive-by fire bomb such silly dailykos talking points....

And Democrats continue to do what their base wants, such as unwanted babies, theological assassination, globalization, and eternally increasing government interference of our lives.

Touche.You realize that every political party plays to their base, thats kinda the point. Otherwise we wouldn't even have parties.

[Msut77]

If you are going to drive-by fire bomb such silly dailykos talking points....

I know that facts and well reality is not your forte but Bush knew about and allowed illegal torture.

You can whine and act even more like a moron than usual but that is the truth.

[thrustbucket]

I know that facts and well reality is not your forte but Bush knew about and allowed illegal torture.

And Bill Clinton knew about and furthered the cause of killing unborn humans. So does that make all Democrats guilty of that particular moral view? See how stupid generalizations make you look foolish yet?

Not everyone considers a techniques that every military and CIA intelligence officer must endure through in training, torture. Some people consider being yelled at torture.

But that's another discussion. And one we've had here, that goes in circles forever.

The point is, to make a blanket statement generalization that the majority of a political party all feel the same on one issue, automatically makes you fail on this topic.

Your reality seems to more and more only exist by the engine of generalization.

[thrustbucket]

You realize that every political party plays to their base, thats kinda the point. Otherwise we wouldn't even have parties.

Of course I realize that. But saying that the republican base loves torture, without further explanation, is beyond moronic.

[Msut77]

See how stupid generalizations make you look foolish yet?

I see a whole lot of stupid and quite a bit of foolishness.

Not everyone considers a techniques that every military and CIA intelligence officer must endure through in training, torture.

Do you care about the rule of law, can you even begin to understand what that means?

It does not matter what "not everyone" thinks, and the issue has more to it than just waterboarding as horrible as that is.

[Msut77]

Of course I realize that. But saying that the republican base loves torture, without further explanation, is beyond moronic.

The majority of them support it McCain flip flopped on the matter and most have defended it.

You can call it whatever you wish "love" or whatever but you are just being an idiot again.

[thrustbucket]

Do you care about the rule of law, can you even begin to understand what that means?
I only care about the rule of law when I believe it's right. Especially international law.
Do you care about the rule of law in most states where gay marriage is illegal?

The majority of them support it McCain flip flopped on the matter and most have defended it.

The majority of republicans DON'T LIKE McCAIN. They feel cornered into voting for what they perceive is the lesser of the evils.

You can call it whatever you wish "love" or whatever but you are just being an idiot again.

I'm starting to see why so many CAG's have put you on ignore. It's obvious, because I am the one "idiot" enough to keep responding to you. Thinking about putting you on ignore myself.

Always such thought provoking, philosophical, party-line-towing, canned response. It's such a pleasure to continue to be called names and read your next generalization. I disagree with a lot of CAG's in this forum, but at least most of them can carry on a civil conversation.

You remind me of the kid in the schoolyard running around saying "my daddy can beat up your daddy".

[Msut77]

I only care about the rule of law when I believe it's right.

I am sorry I can no longer tell when cons are being serious or not.

The majority of republicans DON'T LIKE McCAIN

They liked him more than any of the other Republicans out there.

You remind me of the kid in the schoolyard running around saying "my daddy can beat up your daddy".

You are quite the whiny little dunce aren't you? I am picking on you because I do not go after assorted strawmen, red herrings and ridiculous equivcation?

[thrustbucket]

I am sorry I can no longer tell when cons are being serious or not.

Again with the labels.

What is a con? It's obviously meant in a derogatory manor. Please give me examples of these "con's" you associate me with.
What makes you better than them?
And please diagram out for me why you classify me as one.

They liked him more than any of the other Republicans out there.

I guess maybe where I am getting the confusion is that I keep thinking conservatives. You did say Republican.
Conservatives don't like him. And the republican party hasn't been conservative, nor had a real conservative candidate, for nearly two decades.

[Msut77]

What is a con? It's obviously meant in a derogatory manner.

Conservative. Or so called Conservatives as it were.

What makes you better than them?

The current and some what recent batch?

Basically everything. Especially considering the astonishing admission that you do not give a darn about the rule of law (assuming that you were not joking). It is not astonishing that you feel that way because it is fairly common among reps and cons it is just amazing how you come out and admitted it.

[thrustbucket]

Conservative. Or so called Conservatives as it were.

I don't consider myself conservative. Most likely, much more conservative than you. But that doesn't mean I'm conservative, it might just mean you are extremely liberal.

But I know many people that consider themselves conservatives that I do not agree with.


Basically everything. Especially considering the astonishing admission that you do not give a darn about the rule of law (assuming that you were not joking). It is not astonishing that you feel that way because it is fairly common among reps and cons it is just amazing how you come out and admitted it.

Ok, let me try and be more clear. I do not agree with rule of law, when the law is wrong. In that sense, no I do not give a darn about it. That isn't to say that I believe it should be broken or disregarded.

You never answered my question about gay marriage law. I am assuming, by your ultra-leftist views, that you disagree with many laws in this country. Then it could be said you don't give a darn about those laws either. That doesn't make you a law breaker either.

[Msut77]

I don't consider myself conservative. Most likely, much more conservative than you. But that doesn't mean I'm conservative, it might just mean you are extremely liberal.

I am not that liberal, do you mean to tell you consider yourself a centrist or a moderate etc.?

But I know many people that consider themselves conservatives that I do not agree with.

You do not have to agree with every single conservative ever to be considered a conservative.

I cannot believe this has to be explained to you.

I will agree that Liberal and Conservative are very broad labels but the alternative is to list every single possible issue so for the most part people recognize they tend to fall into one camp and not the other.

IMHO recently most independent/moderates/centrists tend to be right wingers that are just horribly ashamed.

[camoor]

Anyone ever notice how similar TB and Msut's avatars are :lol:

[thrustbucket]

I am not that liberal, do you mean to tell you consider yourself a centrist or a moderate etc.?

If you can't tell, I'm anti-label. I try not to label myself. But if forced to, yes I will admit I'm of a conservative leaning on many things (small government, more power to local governments, abolishing many Federal agencies).

But I also don't believe in a strong foreign policy or presence. I don't believe the government should interfere with people's lives in most cases - unless it's life or death. I don't believe it's governments job to attempt to "make things fair", in most cases.

The only guarantee the government should give is "the right to pursue happiness". Meaning, the right to pursue whatever we want, as long as it doesn't harm others, and we do it self-sufficiently. IMHO, recently they mostly interfere with that, when they should stay out of the way to allow it.

I also don't believe it's governments job to push morality. I am very anti censorship. I strongly believe in being open to ideas that progress society. I believe very much in tolerance and open-mindedness. I am somewhat of an environmentalist, I want to conserve nature in a smart way and reduce pollution. I am very much for equality and civil rights, and I get behind anything that promotes making skin color/sexual orientation/religious beliefs not matter to a society (unlike all mainstream media).

So I guess now you can decide for yourself what I am. If the above makes me a neo-con, so be it.

[thrustbucket]

Anyone ever notice how similar TB and Msut's avatars are :lol:

Fixed :)

[Msut77]

If you can't tell, I'm anti-label. I try not to label myself. But if forced to, yes I will admit I'm of a conservative leaning on many things (small government, more power to local governments, abolishing many Federal agencies).

But I also don't believe in a strong foreign policy or presence. I don't believe the government should interfere with people's lives in most cases - unless it's life or death. I don't believe it's governments job to attempt to "make things fair", in most cases.

The only guarantee the government should give is "the right to pursue happiness". Meaning, the right to pursue whatever we want, as long as it doesn't harm others, and we do it self-sufficiently. IMHO, recently they mostly interfere with that, when they should stay out of the way to allow it.

I also don't believe it's governments job to push morality. I am very anti censorship. I strongly believe in being open to ideas that progress society. I believe very much in tolerance and open-mindedness. I am somewhat of an environmentalist, I want to conserve nature in a smart way and reduce pollution. I am very much for equality and civil rights, and I get behind anything that promotes making skin color/sexual orientation/religious beliefs not matter to a society (unlike all mainstream media).

So I guess now you can decide for yourself what I am. If the above makes me a neo-con, so be it.

You have heard about the Libertarian movement correct?

[thrustbucket]

You have heard about the Libertarian movement correct?

Yes, and I agree with them on many things. I have a friend that quit his job to go work for Ron Paul, and he was always trying to recruit me.

There are some things about them though, that just don't sit right. Mostly with foreign policy - they tend to be a little too extreme.

That being said, I'm probably much more likely to vote for a libertarian than the current crop of dem and reps.

[looploop]

You have heard about the Libertarian movement correct?

Do you really need to pigeonhole him to have a debate with him?

[Msut77]

Do you really need to pigeonhole him to have a debate with him?

Not really, but what he said was pretty standard libertarian boilerplate.

Got anymore stupid questions?

[Ikohn4ever]

"You know, he wants to divide us over race. I'm from the South. I understand this. This quota deal they're gonna pull in the next election is the same old scam they've been pulling on us for decade after decade after decade. When their economic policies fail, when the country's coming apart rather than coming together, what do they do? [B]They find the most economically insecure white men and scare the living daylights out of them. They know if they can keep us looking at each other across a racial divide, if I can look at Bobby Rush and think, Bobby wants my job, my promotion, then neither of us can look at George Bush and say, 'What happened to everybody's job? What happened to everybody's income? What ... have ... you ... done ... to ... our ... country?'"

Bill Clinton 1991

[thrustbucket]

"You know, he wants to divide us over race. I'm from the South. I understand this. This quota deal they're gonna pull in the next election is the same old scam they've been pulling on us for decade after decade after decade. When their economic policies fail, when the country's coming apart rather than coming together, what do they do? [B]They find the most economically insecure white men and scare the living daylights out of them. They know if they can keep us looking at each other across a racial divide, if I can look at Bobby Rush and think, Bobby wants my job, my promotion, then neither of us can look at George Bush and say, 'What happened to everybody's job? What happened to everybody's income? What ... have ... you ... done ... to ... our ... country?'"

Bill Clinton 1991

Both sides of the aisle are very guilty of racial division for political gain. But from what I've seen, it's been far more of a tool used by the Democrats the past year or two.

Oh and it doesn't help that media has everything to gain by conflict and perpetuation of division.

[Ikohn4ever]

Oh and it doesn't help that media has everything to gain by conflict and perpetuation of division.



I am in 100% agreement with this, they have 24 hours of news coverage they need to fill, so they dig for stories that stick and beat the life out of them

[RAMSTORIA]

so just to stir the pot a little bit... i noticed a lot of people say they agree with obama. but whats wrong with "clinging" to religion or being bitter about illegal immigration?

[mykevermin]

It's ignoring the larger structural and power-based causes of our current economic woes?

Clinging to God is just fine; being bitter is just fine; IMO, misguided aggression is damaging and does nothing to solve the issues causing problems in the first place (economic stratification).

[fatherofcaitlyn]

I only care about the rule of law when I believe it's right.

That's very Che of you. I can see why you changed your avatar.

[thrustbucket]

That's very Che of you. I can see why you changed your avatar.

I guess you must have missed the part where I explained that even if you don't agree with law, it's no reason to disregard it.

When I disagree with law or policy I don't go round up those that disagree with me and execute them. So I fail to see your analogy.

[fatherofcaitlyn]

I guess you must have missed the part where I explained that even if you don't agree with law, it's no reason to disregard it.

When I disagree with law or policy I don't go round up those that disagree with me and execute them. So I fail to see your analogy.

If you go against a law, aren't you a rebel?

Wasn't Che a rebel?

[thrustbucket]

If you go against a law, aren't you a rebel?

Wasn't Che a rebel?

There is still a difference. I am sure there are laws you disagree with, it doesn't make you a rebel.

Acting out violently against laws you disagree with, makes you a rebel.

[camoor]

Fixed :)

Son of a...

:rofl:

[MaxBiaggi3]

I'm still amazed at how legions of voters can swayed against their economic self-interests to vote republican each election. (I realize this is a gross oversimplification, but. . . ) If 60% of this country's wealth is held by just five percent of the population, how does the less economically fortunate majority of their voting pool justify continuing to vote for tax cuts for the wealthy? There are only so many laws they can enact against gay, flag-burning abortionists.

[thrustbucket]

I'm still amazed at how legions of voters can swayed against their economic self-interests to vote republican each election. (I realize this is a gross oversimplification, but. . . ) If 60% of this country's wealth is held by just five percent of the population, how does the less economically fortunate majority of their voting pool justify continuing to vote for tax cuts for the wealthy? There are only so many laws they can enact against gay, flag-burning abortionists.

I don't know any middle-class person that votes republican because they want to give tax cuts to the rich (except the rich). They vote republican (economically) because they are afraid of wealth redistribution forced upon everyone but those in poverty.

[Ikohn4ever]

I don't know any middle-class person that votes republican because they want to give tax cuts to the rich (except the rich). They vote republican (economically) because they are afraid of wealth redistribution forced upon everyone but those in poverty.


yes they prefer redistribution of wealth upward as it has been for the past 8 years

[dmaul1114]

I don't know any middle-class person that votes republican because they want to give tax cuts to the rich (except the rich). They vote republican (economically) because they are afraid of wealth redistribution forced upon everyone but those in poverty.

That's it for some.

But a lot of people (in both parties) don't even think about those types of issues and just vote on the hot button moral issues like abortion, capitol punishment, or vote republican as they think that person will be tougher on terrorism etc. etc.

And many more just vote straight party lines without even looking at where the candidates stand on any particular issues.

[thrustbucket]

yes they prefer redistribution of wealth upward as it has been for the past 8 years

That's a huge generalization (http://american.com/archive/2007/november-december-magazine-contents/guess-who-really-pays-the-taxes). The top 5% of rich people pay over half of all income tax. The top 1% pay 19% of all income tax. Where would you be happy exactly? You want the top 5% to pay 75%? 90%? 100%?

Combine this with the shrinking middle class almost directionally proportional to the growing upper class, and what would you like to "fix" exactly?

I am a proponent of the government only facilitating "the pursuit of happiness" as long as it doesn't hurt others. If it makes someone happy to work hard and become rich, then let them. Don't punish them. Don't put programs and policies in place to hamper it any more than we already have.

When Democrats promise to force government to stay out of the "pursuit of happiness" as far as economics go, then I'll start to take them seriously.



That's it for some.

But a lot of people (in both parties) don't even think about those types of issues and just vote on the hot button moral issues like abortion, capitol punishment, or vote republican as they think that person will be tougher on terrorism etc. etc.

And many more just vote straight party lines without even looking at where the candidates stand on any particular issues.

This is very true. And a tragedy. If more people were educated about both parties, the higher chance we'd have in getting some new blood on the ballots after people learn why they should be disgusted in Republicats and Democuns.

[mykevermin]

Combine this with the shrinking middle class almost directionally proportional to the growing upper class, and what would you like to "fix" exactly?

I know you like to make claims instead of actually finding facts or sources, but I implore you to source this for me. Because I don't believe it one fuckin' bit.

[thrustbucket]

I know you like to make claims instead of actually finding facts or sources, but I implore you to source this for me. Because I don't believe it one fuckin' bit.

Of course you don't believe it. Big surprise. That's one of the most popular Liberal/Democrat talking points, and one you fully embrace.

And the reason I rarely supply you with sources is because much like like pundits like Bill O'Rielly, if you disagree with a claim, your next step is to attack the source and pick it apart, regardless of the source. Your mind is already made up on 99% of all issues. You've made that clear. And you certainly are not going to have your mind changed by some dude on a video game forum. Hell or high water, you'll make sure the sources provided get crushed. Ultimately you only believe the sources that agree with your agenda though, so it's circular.

That being said, I'll test this theory and fall for your ploy this once.

Here is a Washington Post (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/05/29/AR2007052902001.html?hpid=topnews) article.

Here (http://www.itif.org/files/DoesProductivityGrowthStillBenefitWorkingAmericans .pdf)is an article by an economist named Stephen Rose, who works(worked?) for a liberal think tank.

Now I'll stand back, as your source hammer comes out, and watch the sparks. Oh, and don't bother to inundate me with your barrage of links to information showing the opposite. I believe you. There are sources out there for every agenda. That's why there are agendas in the first place, all over the spectrum.

[mykevermin]

Hey, lookit you, fancy pants!

thanks. Seriously. I'll give the pdf report a look over in the next coupla days.

[Koggit]

generalization (http://american.com/archive/2007/november-december-magazine-contents/guess-who-really-pays-the-taxes)

Awesome link.

[thrustbucket]

Hey, lookit you, fancy pants!

thanks. Seriously. I'll give the pdf report a look over in the next coupla days.

Nice. Well just let me add one addendum.....

I believe that our economy is so complicated that anyone can skew statistics and census information, using things like sales tax, state to state taxes, property taxes, etc, etc. to show whatever their agenda is. Whether they think the middle class is going lower, or higher. I honestly don't know the truth.

Ultimately, my personal take is, regardless of what's going on with the class system in this country, most taxes are bullshit, and that's where I'd start to fix the problem... Eliminating countless bloated expenditures (yes even military) to bring things back to earth.

[Don Chubo]

Nice. Well just let me add one addendum.....

I believe that our economy is so complicated that anyone can skew statistics and census information, using things like sales tax, state to state taxes, property taxes, etc, etc. to show whatever their agenda is. Whether they think the middle class is going lower, or higher. I honestly don't know the truth.

Ultimately, my personal take is, regardless of what's going on with the class system in this country, most taxes are bullshit, and that's where I'd start to fix the problem... Eliminating countless bloated expenditures (yes even military) to bring things back to earth.

Yeah.

[bmulligan]

“You go into these small towns in Pennsylvania and, like a lot of small towns in the Midwest, the jobs have been gone now for 25 years and nothing’s replaced them. And it’s not surprising, then, they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren’t like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations.”


What makes Obama an elitist is the fat that he doesn't seem to remember, or never learned, that this country was founded upon people who clung to their religion and their guns, had an inherent distrust of government, and that we wouldn't even exist as a nation without either.

His solution? Bigger and more friendly government, of course - the exact thing that's made these people bitter in the first place. He's an "elitist" in the same sense all politicians are when they assume government taking over every aspect of life and economic situation is going to create utopia. Hillary can't call that kettle black.

[Ikohn4ever]

What makes Obama an elitist is the fat that he doesn't seem to remember, or never learned, that this country was founded upon people who clung to their religion and their guns, had an inherent distrust of government, and that we wouldn't even exist as a nation without either.

His solution? Bigger and more friendly government, of course - the exact thing that's made these people bitter in the first place. He's an "elitist" in the same sense all politicians are when they assume government taking over every aspect of life and economic situation is going to create utopia. Hillary can't call that kettle black.


i am sorry but isn't elite a good thing. Would you want an elite surgeon operating on you or an average surgeon? Would you want an elite lawyer representing you or an average one? I love the right wing machine making elite into a bad thing. Somehow someone worth over a 100 mill with 8 houses to his name is more of a man of the people than someone who just finished paying off his student loans in the past 5 years.

[pittpizza]

Good point Ikohn, and bmull you're flat out wrong when you say this country was founded by people clinging to guns and religion. They actually took measures to keep religion out of the government, and they thought that is where it should stay.

Muskets were a necessary part of survival back then, and has no bearing on the state of arms and their use in today's America. If you wanna get into the 2nd A. I'll just remind you that it starts with a pre-condition that the right only exists if it's necessary for a police force to have guns. It is talking about police, not Texans who've locked themselves up in compounds.

And who said they want "bigger" government? You do realize that the actual number of Gov. employees would likely go down if Obama was elected right? At worst, it would stay the same, with perhaps instead of 140k soldiers killing Iraqis, maybe there would be 140k gov. employees working in education, or perhaps even environmental R&D.

There is this retarded partisan tendency to think that every dime democrats spend would go to buying a crack addict crack. It's really childish actually: dems are all about investing in health, education, science and technological advancement. Which of these do you have a problem with? Welfare is a relatively small portion of the pie, especially when considered in light of the billions currently wasted elsewhere (or going into Saudi coffers).

I don't even need to go into detail about the economy since the R's got owned in that respect in another thread.

Thrust, I'm going to ask you a series of yes or no questions, answer them with either "Yes" or "no"

1. Do you think the government ought to help people?

2. Do you think the government should educate its populace, and safeguard the environment?

3. Do you think severe economic inequality is bad?

4. Do you think it is better to have the rest of the world like you, or hate you. (answer this "like" or "hate").

5. Do you think it is better to be in debt, or run a balanced budget? (answer this "debt" or "balance")

6. Do you think it is good to instigate wars on nations that pose no threat to you?

7. Do you think extremely wealthy people will stop making money b/c they pay higher taxes?

8. Do you think in America we should let the poor and the sick die in the streets?

9. Do you think health insurance corporations should be for-profit?

[mykevermin]

i am sorry but isn't elite a good thing. Would you want an elite surgeon operating on you or an average surgeon? Would you want an elite lawyer representing you or an average one? I love the right wing machine making elite into a bad thing. Somehow someone worth over a 100 mill with 8 houses to his name is more of a man of the people than someone who just finished paying off his student loans in the past 5 years.

Or the sheer richness of people who vote Republican claiming that Democrats are elitists.

Because we know who the "estate tax" affects, don't we?

http://www.buttonhole.com.au/images/Dusty-Rhodes-DVD-screen1.jpg

[fatherofcaitlyn]

1. Do you think the government ought to help people?
2. Do you think the government should educate its populace, and safeguard the environment?
3. Do you think severe economic inequality is bad?
4. Do you think it is better to have the rest of the world like you, or hate you. (answer this "like" or "hate").
5. Do you think it is better to be in debt, or run a balanced budget? (answer this "debt" or "balance")
6. Do you think it is good to instigate wars on nations that pose no threat to you?
7. Do you think extremely wealthy people will stop making money b/c they pay higher taxes?
8. Do you think in America we should let the poor and the sick die in the streets?
9. Do you think health insurance corporations should be for-profit?

1. No. They shouldn't interfere if possible.
2. No. Education is a parental responsibility.
3. No. A fool and his money are soon parted.
4. Irrelevant unless the county can wage war against you.
5. Profit until debt is gone.
6. Yes, if they have something we want that they won't sell at a fair price.
7. No, but they won't start paying taxes, either.
8. No, sanitariums or covered up ditches.
9. If government-based, no. If private business-based, yes.

[camoor]

What makes Obama an elitist is the fat that he doesn't seem to remember, or never learned, that this country was founded upon people who clung to their religion and their guns, had an inherent distrust of government, and that we wouldn't even exist as a nation without either.

Nope. The country was founded by people who loved guns and the separation of state and religion. They didn't cling to religion, in fact they advocated getting religion and religous principles out of government altogether.

As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion
- Treaty of Tripoli, approved by George Washington and ratified by John Adams


It does me no injury for my neighbor to say there are twenty gods or no God. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg.
-Thomas Jefferson, Notes on Virginia, 1782


His solution? Bigger and more friendly government, of course - the exact thing that's made these people bitter in the first place. He's an "elitist" in the same sense all politicians are when they assume government taking over every aspect of life and economic situation is going to create utopia. Hillary can't call that kettle black.

I must have missed the speech where Obama professed to be a communist.

[pittpizza]

1. No. They shouldn't interfere if possible.
2. No. Education is a parental responsibility.
3. No. A fool and his money are soon parted.
4. Irrelevant unless the county can wage war against you.
5. Profit until debt is gone.
6. Yes, if they have something we want that they won't sell at a fair price.
7. No, but they won't start paying taxes, either.
8. No, sanitariums or covered up ditches.
9. If government-based, no. If private business-based, yes.

1. No roads, police, hospitals, ambulances? No army or nat'l defense? Zero interference means zero governance. Zero governance is Anarchy. Anarchy in the UK!!!:bouncy:!

2. Uh huh, so you think all schools should be shut down, closed up, and parents (with all their extra time at home) should educate the kids:drool:. Riiiiiiiiiight.

3. So severe economic inequality is good eh? Suuuuure it is. Ever heard of the French Revolution? Go read A Tale of Two Cities, and then come talk to me about the benefits of severe inequality.

4. If your answer isn't "like" then it's "hate". Better to be hated than liked eh? Suuuure it is.

5. Agreed.

6. You think we should just use military force to take what we want from the rest of the world huh? Okay Hitler.

7. Agreed, I don't think they'll stop making money due to higher taxes, and any argument that they will is completely ridiculous. BTW, thrust says they already do pay taxes and lots of em!

8. Glad to see you're proud to be an American, and share a sense of national pride, unity, community and dignity for your fellow citizens! Boy am I glad I'm not your neighbor.

9. So massive corporations with yearly earnings in the billions should go on profiting from the sick and dieing, using teams of lawyers to scour every claim for any reason they can find to deny it?

I can say with absolute modesty that the county would be a lot better off with less people like you in it. All JMO of course!;)

[fatherofcaitlyn]

I must have missed the speech where Obama professed to be a communist.

He is proposing universal health care (socialized medicine).

Also, I've inferred from his speeches that he is for tariffs. Then again, so is Pat Buchanan.

[pittpizza]

He is proposing universal health care (socialized medicine).

Also, I've inferred from his speeches that he is for tariffs. Then again, so is Pat Buchanan.

What a ridiculous argument! Are England, France, Germany, Japan, Canada, Denmark communist?

[dyeknom]

What a ridiculous argument! Are England, France, Germany, Japan, Canada, Denmark communist?

Yes.








Sorry, couldn't resist.

[fatherofcaitlyn]

1. No roads, police, hospitals, ambulances? No army or nat'l defense? Zero interference means zero governance. Zero governance is Anarchy. Anarchy in the UK!!!!
2. Uh huh, so you think all schools should be shut down, closed up, and parents (with all their extra time at home) should educate the kids. Riiiiiiiiiight.
3. So sever economic inequality is good eh? Suuuuure it is.
4. If your answer isn't "like" then it's "hate". Better to be hated than liked eh? Suuuure it is.
5. Agreed.
6. You think we should just use military force to take what we want from the rest of the world huh? Okay Hitler.
7. Agreed, I don't think they'll stop making money due to higher taxes, and any argument that they will is completely ridiculous. BTW, thrust says they already do pay taxes and lots of em!
8. Glad to see you're proud to be an American, and share a sense of national pride and dignity for your fellow citizens! Boy am I glad I'm not your neighbor.
9. So massive corporations with yearly earnings in the billions should go on profiting from the sick and dieing, using teams of lawyers to scour every claim for any reason they can find to deny it?


1. Roads and hospitals do not have to be created and administered by the government. America lasted for a long time without a standing army. Police are only necessary when somebody has broken an agreed upon rule.
2. You can have an educational system without government. I could teach my kids pretty everything up to college. After that, I or they could hire people to train them on more advanced subjects.
3. Why should I be in the same economic boat as an idiot by design?
4. Feelings < Actions. If a person can't act upon a feeling, it isn't relevant. Of course, I'm not advocating stomping on toes as policy.
6. No, Okay, human history. If the alternative is death, there is no real choice. Stealing food to survive another day is OK. Stealing a car to joyride is not OK.
7. Rich people learn how to hide money.
8. Nobody is born 60 with several medical conditions and no savings. Anybody over 18 is their own responsibility first and and the government's last. It should be drilled into kids' heads the instance they start walking. (Let's try an anecdote. My mother-in-law is an idiot with money. She has bounced some checks and now owes the electric company $300. To keep her lights on, I'm willing to pay the bill, but I want somebody else to handle her checkbook to prevent this from happening again. In your society, you, camoor, thrust and myke have to help my mother-in-law with her mistake. Is that fair?)
9. There isn't just one insurance company. Premiums shouldn't be the only question a buyer asks a potential insurer.

[fatherofcaitlyn]

What a ridiculous argument! Are England, France, Germany, Japan, Canada, Denmark communist?

Socialism isn't an on/off switch. It's a dimmer switch.

[pittpizza]

1. Roads and hospitals do not have to be created and administered by the government. America lasted for a long time without a standing army. Police are only necessary when somebody has broken an agreed upon rule.
2. You can have an educational system without government. I could teach my kids pretty everything up to college. After that, I or they could hire people to train them on more advanced subjects.
3. Why should I be in the same economic boat as an idiot by design?
4. Feelings < Actions. If a person can't act upon a feeling, it isn't relevant. Of course, I'm not advocating stomping on toes as policy.
6. No, Okay, human history. If the alternative is death, there is no real choice. Stealing food to survive another day is OK. Stealing a car to joyride is not OK.
7. Rich people learn how to hide money.
8. Nobody is born 60 with several medical conditions and no savings. Anybody over 18 is their own responsibility first and and the government's last. It should be drilled into kids' heads the instance they start walking. (Let's try an anecdote. My mother-in-law is an idiot with money. She has bounced some checks and now owes the electric company $300. To keep her lights on, I'm willing to pay the bill, but I want somebody else to handle her checkbook to prevent this from happening again. In your society, you, camoor, thrust and myke have to help my mother-in-law with her mistake. Is that fair?)
9. There isn't just one insurance company. Premiums shouldn't be the only question a buyer asks a potential insurer.

1. So you think EVERY thing provided by the government should be taken over by an entity whose primary interest is not serving the people or doing its job, but making profits? Yeah, no thanks.

2. YOu think all americans are capable of teaching thier kids everything they need to know, and think that our country would be better of for it?? Ha, you're more naive than I thought.

3. Who said you should be in the same economic boat as an idiot? Are you implying that everyone who isn't wealthy is an idiot, or every poor person is an idiot?

4. Okay, so if feelings spur actions, would you like those actions to be motivated by hate affinity? Hint: It's not hate.

6. So it's okay to steal from other countries, so long as we really need it? Who gets to make this "need or want" decision, the people or one person?

7. The IRS learns how to find it (usually better than rich can hide it, though it is cat-and-mouse).

8. fuck yeah it's fair! I guess this is where you and I differ: I'd love to live in a society where there is such a sense of community and unity that those with excess help those in need. You'd love to live in a society where everyone is so selfish and diffident that those with excess watch those in need suffer and die. Moreover I find it personally distasteful that you hate your mother! <-- I keed, I keed. ;)

9. I just feel that in such a developed society, where we can afford soooo much for bombs and war, corporations should not be allowed to profit from the death and sickness of the American people, or at the very least, it should not be such a great windfall.

Fucking shit man, it's like every person on earth thinks "helping those who need it" translates into "buy crack and alcohol for the lazy." The ease with which you equate "poor" or "those in need" to (your term) "idiots" is a testament to this.

Belieive it or not, there are millions of Americans who are in really bad situations, due to no fault of thier own: thier job became automated or was shipped to china, they couldn't afford school so are in tens of thousands of dollars in debt to uncle sam, a necessary surgery was deemed "cosmetic" or "experimental", was excluded, or some other reason, so it bankrupted them, etc. I'm sure you know some, I do.

[dyeknom]

Simple solution to everything? Legalize all drugs.

[thrustbucket]

Good point Ikohn, and bmull you're flat out wrong when you say this country was founded by people clinging to guns and religion. They actually took measures to keep religion out of the government, and they thought that is where it should stay.

They didn't cling to religion, in fact they advocated getting religion and religious principles out of government altogether.
You do realize that the main reason for the pilgrims coming here in the first place was so that they could HAVE the religion they wanted to have without persecution? The freedom to BE religious without a government telling you how is what they created this country for.

It seems that the modern day (your) interpretation of “The separation of church from state” differs from the founding fathers, who regularly held prayer in congress (http://meetthefounders.blogspot.com/2007/09/first-prayer-in-united-states-congress.html).

They simply didn’t want a religion controlling government. That’s the extent of their worry. Now it’s grown into a much bigger and nastier secular hammer.

You'll never completely remove religion from government unless you remove religious people from running government. And that's fine. As long as a single religion doesn't control a government.

Muskets were a necessary part of survival back then, and has no bearing on the state of arms and their use in today's America. If you wanna get into the 2nd A. I'll just remind you that it starts with a pre-condition that the right only exists if it's necessary for a police force to have guns. It is talking about police, not Texans who've locked themselves up in compounds.

Interesting interpretation. I guess you live in a false security that the government can and will never turn on its citizens? Do I need to list how many governments in the past were only able to do what they did BECAUSE their citizens were unarmed?

"We did indeed know much about your preparedness. We knew that probably every second home in your country contained firearms. We knew that your country actually had state championships for private citizens shooting military rifles. We were not fools to set foot in such quicksand."

And who said they want "bigger" government? You do realize that the actual number of Gov. employees would likely go down if Obama was elected right? At worst, it would stay the same, with perhaps instead of 140k soldiers killing Iraqis, maybe there would be 140k gov. employees working in education, or perhaps even environmental R&D.

Wow. That kool-aid must be a really good flavor. What is it? Whatever it is, I’m sure it’s bright red.

There is this retarded partisan tendency to think that every dime democrats spend would go to buying a crack addict crack. It's really childish actually:
I’ve never heard die-hard republican or conservative say such nonsense. That’s a gross generalization.
dems are all about investing in health, education, science and technological advancement. Which of these do you have a problem with?
I have a problem with government doing the investing in so many things when they should be standing out of the way (taxes/policies) and encouraging private enterprise to do the investing in those things.

Welfare is a relatively small portion of the pie, especially when considered in light of the billions currently wasted elsewhere (or going into Saudi coffers).
Okay then. Let’s drastically reduce one and get rid of the other. I'll even let it be your choice.

I don't even need to go into detail about the economy since the R's got owned in that respect in another thread.
Keep in mind, I am not a republican. I group them with democrats on most of the blame for everything. I merely think you seem to easily fall into the "democrat good, republican bad" (or vice versa) talking point that so many Americans get caught up in.

Thrust, I'm going to ask you a series of yes or no questions, answer them with either "Yes" or "no"
Oh goody , I love quizzes. Hope my boss doesn't notice how long I've spent on this....

1. Do you think the government ought to help people?
If by help, you mean stay out of the way and out of their wallets, yes. If you mean handouts, then no.

2. Do you think the government should educate its populace, and safeguard the environment?
That’s two questions. No, it’s not government’s job to force education, but they should encourage, through policies, the desire to be educated (for example, why would anyone want to waste time on education if higher paying jobs just end up taxed into oblivion?)
Yes the government should prevent the wonton destruction/pollution of the environment as part of their “protection” role. But do it where it makes sense, and keep the extremist lobbyists out of the decision making process. For example, Drilling in northern Alaska can be done “green” and it would solve a myriad of problems. So it should be allowed, as long as it’s done carefully.

3. Do you think severe economic inequality is bad?
That’s a loaded question. People should get no, or very little, government help for laziness. If there is clear and present proof of persecution causing suffering, then obviously more help.
And anyone “dependant” on the government financially given those requirements should be monitored and heavily regulated, and forced into programs where they are clearly given opportunity, with a built in time limit.

4. Do you think it is better to have the rest of the world like you, or hate you. (answer this "like" or "hate").
Another loaded question. And I refuse to answer it as you suggest. I think it’s best for any nation to take care of its interests/needs first, and then address other countries concerns where it makes political sense.

5. Do you think it is better to be in debt, or run a balanced budget? (answer this "debt" or "balance")
Balanced

6. Do you think it is good to instigate wars on nations that pose no threat to you?
If enough proof is put forth that they eventually can pose a threat to you and/or your interests, and they constantly verbally threaten your nation and it's interests, while funding, facilitating, and encouraging much more proven dangerous rogue extremist groups, and after many years of warning..... then sometimes yes that makes sense.

7. Do you think extremely wealthy people will stop making money b/c they pay higher taxes?
Depends on how high the taxes go. It isn’t so relevant for existing rich people. It’s relevant how much motivation we remove from striving to be rich, which is the engine that makes our economy work (or should be).

8. Do you think in America we should let the poor and the sick die in the streets?
It depends on why you are poor and sick. If you decide to go become a crack addict and run yourself into the ground, why should the rest of us pay to “attempt” to make you better? Especially if you don’t want to be better.

It should be noted that this should be the job of charities. And it should be very beneficial to donate to them, versus pay taxes to the government.

9. Do you think health insurance corporations should be for-profit?
Absolutely. Any corporation that isn’t for profit will naturally do a shitty job. And that’s one industry I’d really prefer not to do a shitty job.

I must have missed the speech where Obama professed to be a communist.
He hasn't. But every time he talks about how much more "help" through spending and regulation, the government should be giving it's people he gets closer and closer.

[fatherofcaitlyn]

1. So you think EVERY thing provided by the government should be taken over by an entity whose primary interest is not serving the people or doing its job, but making profits? Yeah, no thanks.

The role of government is arbiter (neutral party) when two parties are in a disagreement. Other than that, people can pool or trade their resources or services to get the resources or services they need. Want a hospital, roads or doctors? I'm sure those things can be had after a negotiated price.

2. YOu think all americans are capable of teaching thier kids everything they need to know, and think that our country would be better of for it?? Ha, you're more naive than I thought.

Education is a parental responsibility. If parents can't teach a child a subject, they should use their resources or services to get the child the proper educational resource. It doesn't require government.

3. Who said you should be in the same economic boat as an idiot? Are you implying that everyone who isn't wealthy is an idiot, or every poor person is an idiot?

There are more idiots than geniuses. Government doesn't know the difference.

4. Okay, so if feelings spur actions, would you like those actions to be motivated by hate affinity? Hint: It's not hate.

Much better. If those actions CAN affect you, you don't want them coming from a place of hate. If those actions CAN'T affect you, it doesn't matter the motivation.

6. So it's okay to steal from other countries, so long as we really need it? Who gets to make this "need or want" decision, the people or one person?

The victor. Somebody has something you need to survive. The Somebody won't trade it to you for anything you can offer? You take it or die trying. That's human history.

7. The IRS learns how to find it (usually better than rich can hide it, though it is cat-and-mouse).

Agreed. It also depends on if the IRS chooses to pursue the person.

8. fuck yeah it's fair! I guess this is where you and I differ: I'd love to live in a society where there is such a sense of community and unity that those with excess help those in need. You'd love to live in a society where everyone is so selfish and diffident that those with excess watch those in need suffer and die. Moreover I find it personally distasteful that you hate your mother! <-- I keed, I keed. ;)

Agreed to disagree. My mother-in-law has had several decades to get her affairs in order. She failed. It is neither your fault nor your responsibility to bail her out.

9. I just feel that in such a developed society, where we can afford soooo much for bombs and war, corporations should not be allowed to profit from the death and sickness of the American people, or at the very least, it should not be such a great windfall.

Health care companies have screwed the pooch for the most part. They have been helped by a complacent public and competition intolerant providers. Neither the providers nor the companies will like it when the public decides to not be complacent.

[bmulligan]

Nope. The country was founded by people who loved guns and the separation of state and religion. They didn't cling to religion, in fact they advocated getting religion and religous principles out of government altogether.

You and PitPizza are confusing religion with christianity. You are also forgetting why people came to settle in America. Besides fortune, they came to practice religious freedom. Anyone who wants to cling to their religion is free to do so and it's not an effect of government not being effective enough.

For Obama to imply that government is the remedy for those who cling to guns and religion is a fundamental misunderstanding of our form of government and the purpose under which it was founded.

Belieive it or not, there are millions of Americans who are in really bad situations, due to no fault of thier own: thier job became automated or was shipped to china, they couldn't afford school so are in tens of thousands of dollars in debt to uncle sam, a necessary surgery was deemed "cosmetic" or "experimental", was excluded, or some other reason, so it bankrupted them, etc. I'm sure you know some, I do.

This is called life. The fact that you believe government's job is to be the safety net for everyone regardless of the life choices they make means yes, you are a closet communist. You just like to flirt with the illusion of freedom. You say you want it but you don't really understand the concept. You think freedom means everybody gets do do whatever they want, or, everybody gets their fair share.

You don't think it's right for us to steal what we want from other countries, yet your relative moralism allows you to steal from me in in the form of taxes in order to "help" others whom you deem to be needy r disenfranchised. How much of your own income do you donate to the local homeless shelter, church, mentor, or adopt-a-family program? My guess is not enough so that it curtails all your luxuries - like vvideogame, internet service, cable, or a new silk tie for your lawyering duties. Trust me, the altruistic savior role has beeen played by much better actors.

Blind to your own contradictory philosophy, you can never reconcile freedom, choice, and individualism with your communal value system that says everything must be shared equally in order to be fair. But until you give up every penny of your entire net worth for your own cause and live only for survival, you have no right to force me to sacrifice anything for your personal crusade.

[Don Chubo]

bmulligan, thrust, and FoC FTW on this one.

[Ikohn4ever]

You and PitPizza are confusing religion with christianity. You are also forgetting why people came to settle in America. Besides fortune, they came to practice religious freedom. Anyone who wants to cling to their religion is free to do so and it's not an effect of government not being effective enough.

i think you are confusing why people came here to settle, actually people originally came here following animal migration



they might have believed in religion but they felt that it didnt have a place in government thats why there is no official religion of this country since they were Deists and thought each religion had its merits. Fundamentalists have been pushing their agendas for 7 years now, especially in places like the military where they have been taking over. There is a difference between using your religion as a moral compass to help you steer you decision making and letting it navigate for you.

[dmaul1114]

they might have believed in religion but they felt that it didnt have a place in government thats why there is no official religion of this country since they were Deists and thought each religion had its merits. Fundamentalists have been pushing their agendas for 7 years now, especially in places like the military where they have been taking over. There is a difference between using your religion as a moral compass to help you steer you decision making and letting it navigate for you.

No a lot of the original settlers (i.e. the pilgrams--puritans) came for religious freedom after being persecuted in Europe.

And a big reason we have separation of church and state is to prevent such persecution that inevitably comes with having an official state religion.

Of course seeing the merits of various religions played some role, but past experience with persecutions was the driving force, at least in most historians estimations as far as I've read.

[pittpizza]

bmulligan, thrust, and FoC FTO on this one.

Fixed. And the TO stands for " their own."


BMull and thrust, trust me when I tell you that I know a thing or two more about Con. law than you. I know exactly what the first Amendment and USSC precedent espoused thereunder says and does not say because I spent an entire semester studying just that one Amendment. I'm not confusing anything my friends, you are. Though thrust has the gist: it may be more appropriate to say "Freedom FROM religion" than "Freedom OF religion"; "From" meaning no state-sponsored religion (which is what they were fleeing and why they were being persecuted).

There really is no reconciliation for such drastic differences in views. I feel that when we spend so many billions on war, destruction, and death, yet so many here at home are sick, poor, uneducated, or saddled with an almost insurmountable debt, something is fucked up. Our government cares more about helping (killing) foreigners than helping its citizens at home, and you three are happy with it? Laughable.

I guess Bmull, thrust, and FoC feel confident that they and everybody else will do just fine taking care of themselves without any help from anybody else, including the government. This is the perfect society: an anarchical system where only the strongest survive and everyone just keeps what they make and fends for themselves. I suggest you read Leviathan by Hobbes if you think this is the way to go. Read that book and your views will change and you'll be better citizens for it.

Why should one of the richest nations in the world give a shit about its citizens, or spend a single dime on them? Heck, for that matter who needs a government at all right? We can just count on the free market and captialism to make sure all is well. Car companies just put seatbelts in cars and give em good gas mileage out of benevolence right? (wrong.) After all, most everybody that isn't rich is an incompetent drug using idiot and deserves what they get. For those that really are legitimately disable, ahhhh fuck em!

you believe government's job is to be the safety net for everyone regardless of the life choices they make means yes, you are a closet communist. You just like to flirt with the illusion of freedom. You say you want it but you don't really understand the concept. You think freedom means everybody gets do do whatever they want, or, everybody gets their fair share.

Where did I say any of this? Show me, I'd like to see it. And thank you for telling me exactly what I beleive, think, and understand. You must know me better than I know myself huh? Your condescention and presumptiveness is insulting.

You don't think it's right for us to steal what we want from other countries, yet your relative moralism allows you to steal from me in in the form of taxes in order to "help" others whom you deem to be needy r disenfranchised. How much of your own income do you donate to the local homeless shelter, church, mentor, or adopt-a-family program? My guess is not enough so that it curtails all your luxuries - like vvideogame, internet service, cable, or a new silk tie for your lawyering duties. Trust me, the altruistic savior role has beeen played by much better actors.

So you think the taxes you pay is the government "stealing" from you? Remember this the next time you drive on a road, put a kid in school, call the cops, or live in safety. When did I deem anybody needy or disenfranchised? It surely isn't my job, it's the peoples'. Who is playing the altruistic savior role? Not me. I live fly as hell; but this doesn't mean I don't have the right to bitch about how things could be better and mis-spent tax dollars.


Blind to your own contradictory philosophy, you can never reconcile freedom, choice, and individualism with your communal value system that says everything must be shared equally in order to be fair. But until you give up every penny of your entire net worth for your own cause and live only for survival, you have no right to force me to sacrifice anything for your personal crusade.


Now we're getting somewhere, though far be it for me to point out that about every other CAG could say what you did without being such a dick about it ('cept myke maybe, lol). The next time you want to tell me what I can and can't do, do me a favor and STFU, okay? What you lack in subtlety and charm, you certainly make up for in self-interestedness!

Again, you're putting words in my mouth that were not there. You're taking moderation and torturing it into extremity. Where did I say everything must be shared and shared alike?

Moreover, until I'm a congressman, I have no ability to force you to give up anything, unless I sue you but thats OT. Guess what though, some people DO have a right to force you to give them money, and they are called "the big bad government!" By eating, sleeping, and working in such a wonderful place, you purposefully avail yourself of all the benefits that the government offers, yet you don't want to pay for them. Hmmm? Sounds fishy. If you don't wanna pay taxes, fuckin go live in the woods. Go Into the Wild style where you can take care of yourself without having people "steal" from you so you can drive your car on nice roads, get water and electricity piped into your house, be free from foreign invasion, have the populace educated (the list goes on and on). Stealing!? Ha!

My entire position is only that we should take every single dime that is mis-spent on death and destruction abroad, and use it for the betterment of society at home. My point is that the billions that fatten the wallets of HMO's/M.E. oil companies/defense contractors riddled with cronyism (the list goes on and on) would be better spent buying healthcare for those that can't afford it (due to no fault of their own), educating those that need it, and helping those legitimately unable to help themselves.

You guys are the ones who live in a dreamworld, where everyone born is able to take care of themselves, and when they can't it is because of their own laziness. People are born retarded, people get disabled, people get sick, "life" as you put it happens.

Where you three and I differ is that I'd prefer to live in a society where we actually gave a shit about each other. Where less assholes (not you, just other people like you) ask "Why should I have to help him?" and more people ask "Why shouldn't we help him?"

How can you so callously assume that every single person in need is there because of laziness, drugs, or some other ignoble cause?

Since you took the liberty of putting lots of words in my mouth, I'll return the favor b/c it's fun isn't it?

I care about people other than myself, you don't. I think America is rich enough to fund post highschool education, to feed the hungry, treat the ill, protect the environment, keep us safe from foreign invasion, you don't and feel that this money is better off in CEO's pockets and big business' corporate coffers. I think it is incumbent for the government to safeguard natural resources and the environment for posterity, you think that businesses can and will just do this on thier own, which is laughable to me. I want to live in a place that has national pride, where people care about each other, share a sense of community (not communism, COMMUNITY), have self respect and a sense of self worth, actually like the government because it helps them, and where the government fears the people and not vice-versa.

FOC, I really get a kick out of the fact that you think the American public can and should just educate their own children. You have quite a lot of faith in people my friend.

I only was more ammused by the fact that you think the only thing keeping the government from enslaving the people is the fact that the people have guns. Okay I admit, the fact that you think the people and their guns could stand up to the US military is even more humorous. Ahhhh, that's cute.


There are more idiots than geniuses. Government doesn't know the difference.


Ha, try: There are more idiots (bush) than geniuses (gore, see nobel peace prize). The populace doesn't know the difference.

YOu still didn't answer my question: who gets to make the need/want distinction, the people or one person?

If your mother in law was unable to work, you three suggest she should just be left to starve and die, right? The government shouldn't interfere: if some charity wants to help her fine, but if not, let her die. We all know how charitable Americans are.

So I can get an accurate view of your positions. Answer me these questions thrust, FOC, heavy hitter, and BMull:

What is the best form of government?

What (if anything) should the government do? Surely you don't advocate privatization of EVERYTHING, right?

If charity falls short on caring for those in legitimate (just assume it) need, should the government aid them?

[Don Chubo]

You may have (and i emphasize may have) had something up until you called Al Gore a genius. That pretty much nosedived your post into the toilet.

[camoor]

You and PitPizza are confusing religion with christianity. You are also forgetting why people came to settle in America. Besides fortune, they came to practice religious freedom. Anyone who wants to cling to their religion is free to do so and it's not an effect of government not being effective enough.

For Obama to imply that government is the remedy for those who cling to guns and religion is a fundamental misunderstanding of our form of government and the purpose under which it was founded.

Couldn't find the entire speech but I don't think he was proposing a New Deal for rural towns.

Just change in Washington. You know - so multimillionaire investment bankers in NYC don't pay less in taxes then their doorman does. Or the govt don't subsidise SUVs for the super-rich. Or we don't give tax breaks to companies that outsource or do all of their business in USA but incorporate in a tax shelter like the Cayman islands. Or the President doesn't elect a teamful of cronies like former housing secretary Alfonso who gives special breaks to mortgage banks in return for payoffs.

I don't like Universal Healthcare (and IMO that's a gross oversimplification of Obama's position), but I'd rather pay for the healthcare of America's poorest then a war waged on Iraq's poorest.

[fatherofcaitlyn]

So I can get an accurate view of your positions. Answer me these questions thrust, FOC, heavy hitter, and BMull:

What is the best form of government?

What (if anything) should the government do? Surely you don't advocate privatization of EVERYTHING, right?

If charity falls short on caring for those in legitimate (just assume it) need, should the government aid them?

One strong enough to enforce a limited set of rules agreed upon by the majority of the people.

The only thing that can't be privatized is the interpretation of the law (Beat Cop to Supreme Court Justice).

If charity falls short, the person in need of the charity should suffer.

Charity is a human virtue. Government is a human institution, not a human.

Forcing people to give money to other people through taxes is not charity.

[JolietJake]

Spoken like someone who has never needed charity or suffered without it.:-k

[fatherofcaitlyn]

Spoken like someone who has never needed charity or suffered without it.:-k

I missed many meals growing up and suffered after I received charity.

[mykevermin]

This is called life. The fact that you believe government's job is to be the safety net for everyone regardless of the life choices they make means yes, you are a closet communist. You just like to flirt with the illusion of freedom. You say you want it but you don't really understand the concept. You think freedom means everybody gets do do whatever they want, or, everybody gets their fair share.

You don't think it's right for us to steal what we want from other countries, yet your relative moralism allows you to steal from me in in the form of taxes in order to "help" others whom you deem to be needy r disenfranchised. How much of your own income do you donate to the local homeless shelter, church, mentor, or adopt-a-family program? My guess is not enough so that it curtails all your luxuries - like vvideogame, internet service, cable, or a new silk tie for your lawyering duties. Trust me, the altruistic savior role has beeen played by much better actors.

Blind to your own contradictory philosophy, you can never reconcile freedom, choice, and individualism with your communal value system that says everything must be shared equally in order to be fair. But until you give up every penny of your entire net worth for your own cause and live only for survival, you have no right to force me to sacrifice anything for your personal crusade.

Two points:

1) As a firm believer in non-government intervention and the promise of the free market, how many deaths are acceptable due to airline noncompliance with regular maintenance checks of their planes? Southwest, United, Delta, and others - all caused severe problems because they weren't maintaining their vehicles, or even giving them checkups. Some of the planes were in quite shoddy condition. So, in your view that all government is bad, all free market is good, the question stands: what is the number of deaths that is acceptable in order to maintain the freedom of the airline industry to check their own places when they see fit?

2) You're a fraud, simply because you believe in this hackneyed notion of "freedom" and individual wealth and enterprise (as well as the power structure inherent in a meritocracy, or the more modern inheritocracy) - yet you're anti-Union. You believe in the power of big business to determine what portion of profit is theirs, and what portion their employees deserve. But you do not believe in the power of employees to form as a collective to increase their bargaining power. And don't give me that "unions today are corrupt" nonsense, because while that is certainly part and parcel of what killed Detroit (but by no means all), you're against the idea of unions. You deny the freedom to gather and use individual freedom in the name of power to those who desire to use it, yet you stand behind your flag of Adam Smith like some sort of untouchable American naturalist.

What a joke. Not as much of a joke as your claim that any government action = immediate communism (you'd think someone with your vocabulary might have a knowledge of the words "complexity" or "multifaceted," but it appears you only know "dichotomy"), which is a claim that, of course, implies by your definition that the United States is currently a communist nation - but a joke nonetheless.

[thrustbucket]

BMull and thrust, trust me when I tell you that I know a thing or two more about Con. law than you. I know exactly what the first Amendment and USSC precedent espoused thereunder says and does not say because I spent an entire semester studying just that one Amendment. I'm not confusing anything my friends, you are. Though thrust has the gist: it may be more appropriate to say "Freedom FROM religion" than "Freedom OF religion"; "From" meaning no state-sponsored religion (which is what they were fleeing and why they were being persecuted).

There really is no reconciliation for such drastic differences in views. I feel that when we spend so many billions on war, destruction, and death, yet so many here at home are sick, poor, uneducated, or saddled with an almost insurmountable debt, something is fucked up. Our government cares more about helping (killing) foreigners than helping its citizens at home, and you three are happy with it? Laughable.

I guess Bmull, thrust, and FoC feel confident that they and everybody else will do just fine taking care of themselves without any help from anybody else, including the government. This is the perfect society: an anarchical system where only the strongest survive and everyone just keeps what they make and fends for themselves. I suggest you read Leviathan by Hobbes if you think this is the way to go. Read that book and your views will change and you'll be better citizens for it.


You know what always amazes me with people like you (your views, specifically) is that you love to go back to the founding fathers and the reasons for the constitution to push certain things (like your views on religion and guns). But you run from it when it comes to others.

In the 1800's everything you are proposing would have been laughable. Nobody considered it governments role to "take care of people". People were excited to live in a country that was founded to STAY THE FUCK OUT OF THEIR WAY. That is ultimately what this country was set up for, like it or not. Everything about the Declaration of Independence and Constitution bleeds that attitude.

Even up into the 1950's, much of the nanny-state high taxes issues you espouse would have been laughed at. People had no concept just 50 years ago of a government holding out it's "helping guiding hand" in every aspect of life.


Why should one of the richest nations in the world give a shit about its citizens, or spend a single dime on them? Heck, for that matter who needs a government at all right? We can just count on the free market and captialism to make sure all is well. Car companies just put seatbelts in cars and give em good gas mileage out of benevolence right? (wrong.) After all, most everybody that isn't rich is an incompetent drug using idiot and deserves what they get. For those that really are legitimately disable, ahhhh fuck em!

You are being extreme. Nobody is suggesting that we completely annihilate all policy and law. But we are suggesting that we have far more policy and law than necessary, and that too much policy and law stifle everything that has made this country great until now.


So you think the taxes you pay is the government "stealing" from you? Remember this the next time you drive on a road, put a kid in school, call the cops, or live in safety. When did I deem anybody needy or disenfranchised? It surely isn't my job, it's the peoples'. Who is playing the altruistic savior role? Not me. I live fly as hell; but this doesn't mean I don't have the right to bitch about how things could be better and mis-spent tax dollars.

Obviously taxes are necessary. We are saying that beyond basic infrastructure and military protection from invasion, many programs are very unnecessary.

Yes, taking as much tax as they do out of my paycheck for many many programs, departments, so-called "services" and welfare programs, massive black budgets, pork spending, and $40,000 "hammers" - that I disagree with and it is stealing, to me.


If you don't wanna pay taxes, fuckin go live in the woods. Go Into the Wild style where you can take care of yourself without having people "steal" from you so you can drive your car on nice roads, get water and electricity piped into your house, be free from foreign invasion, have the populace educated (the list goes on and on).

Interesting that you basically listed nearly all the ONLY real good reasons to give a government money. Good job.

My entire position is only that we should take every single dime that is mis-spent on death and destruction abroad, and use it for the betterment of society at home. My point is that the billions that fatten the wallets of HMO's/M.E. oil companies/defense contractors riddled with cronyism (the list goes on and on) would be better spent buying healthcare for those that can't afford it (due to no fault of their own), educating those that need it, and helping those legitimately unable to help themselves.

And my entire position is that they shouldn't have most of those dimes to begin with. They aren't mis-spent, they are unnecessary altogether.

You guys are the ones who live in a dreamworld, where everyone born is able to take care of themselves, and when they can't it is because of their own laziness. People are born retarded, people get disabled, people get sick, "life" as you put it happens.

That's not a dreamworld. You obviously don't have any faith in people's natural tendencies and abilities to take care of each other. Not your fault though, politicians have been beating into our heads the last 75 years that we can't. The answer isn't to give all the money and power to one organization to "take care of everything".

The government can make sure that almost everything you listed is taken care of by providing INCENTIVES for the free market to do so, rather than taking everyone's money and doing it themselves.

Where you three and I differ is that I'd prefer to live in a society where we actually gave a shit about each other. Where less assholes (not you, just other people like you) ask "Why should I have to help him?" and more people ask "Why shouldn't we help him?"

No actually we don't differ. We want to live in that same society. We want people to care about each other and take care of each other, and especially have the means to do so.

I view the government as a parent. If your kids are fighting or one of them is hurt, is it good parenting to FORCE the others to help because you said so? Is it good parenting to sit them all down and FORCE them to get along by punishing them if they don't? No, it would be good parenting to give them advice and incentives to take care of each other and get along. It would be good parenting, usually, to stay out of their conflicts unless one of them was really in danger.

If you have a teenager that refuses to move out or get a job, do you give him tough love and force him to for his own good or do you let him stay indefinitely, hoping he decides to grow up, because that's the "compassionate" thing to do? That's the difference between you and I.

Kids, people, and society don't/can't progress much, or become self sufficient, or live up to their full potential with permanent training wheels that don't come off even if you try.

How can you so callously assume that every single person in need is there because of laziness, drugs, or some other ignoble cause?
I don't know of anyone that assumed such a thing. I told you that there should be some, very limited, very regulated social programs. That's fine with me. But they should be privatized as much as possible, like almost everything should, through tax incentives.


I care about people other than myself, you don't.
What a pretentious crock of self-indulgent shit. I give at least 10% of all my income to charities.
It could be more, but uncle sam takes too much. Which is good, because they can obviously help people far better than I ever could, right?

I think America is rich enough to fund post highschool education, to feed the hungry, treat the ill, protect the environment, keep us safe from foreign invasion, you don't and feel that this money is better off in CEO's pockets and big business' corporate coffers. I think it is incumbent for the government to safeguard natural resources and the environment for posterity, you think that businesses can and will just do this on thier own, which is laughable to me.
What is laughable is that you fail to realize the entire reason this nation is as powerful and rich as it is, is because up until the last few decades people were allowed to prosper. The nanny-state you are proposing would threaten ruining that further than it already has been. And your lack of realization on that is astounding.

I want to live in a place that has national pride, where people care about each other, share a sense of community (not communism, COMMUNITY), have self respect and a sense of self worth, actually like the government because it helps them, and where the government fears the people and not vice-versa.

I totally agree on all points. I don't know anyone that doesn't.

The difference is, you believe you can achieve that by giving government more power, more money, and more trust to do the right thing with it all, which history has proven can never happen. The more power you give any single person or entity, it exponentially increases the risk of corruption. In fact, it virtually guarantees it.

You, like many of my leftist friends, live in a naive utopia where a government can have all the power necessary, as long as they do the right things. It will never happen. It can't happen. That's fantasy.

It truly amazes me that you have no faith in the common man, the local small governments, or in you and me, to take care of each other when left to our own devices. But somehow you have total and complete faith in the possibility of creating government that can.


I only was more ammused by the fact that you think the only thing keeping the government from enslaving the people is the fact that the people have guns. Okay I admit, the fact that you think the people and their guns could stand up to the US military is even more humorous. Ahhhh, that's cute.

Where did anyone say that was the "only" thing? For someone that keeps crying about words being put in your mouth, you sure do a bang up job.

Lucky for us, most of the people in the U.S Military would side with us on views on gun rights, and most in the U.S. Military wouldn't have the stomach to have gun battles with their fellow citizens.
But that doesn't discount the fact that the prospect of tyranny over an armed populace is very daunting. Which is why Hitler made sure that private gun ownership was banned a year before he came to power. Call it wacky, right wing conspiracy, but I'm sure most Germans didn't think it was a big deal to give up their guns at the time.

If your mother in law was unable to work, you three suggest she should just be left to starve and die, right? The government shouldn't interfere: if some charity wants to help her fine, but if not, let her die. We all know how charitable Americans are.

Americans are the most charitable people on earth, even without the government. Are you suggesting that if the government had more of our money they'd do an even better job?

Last I checked, the government was more interested in peoples right to kill unwanted life, defining who's life was worth living, and throwing money at hardened murderous criminals.

So I can get an accurate view of your positions. Answer me these questions thrust, FOC, heavy hitter, and BMull:

What is the best form of government?
I'm not sure if there would be a name for it. But I'd start by going back in our nations history when it was most prosperous, and our people had the most freedom, least government interference, and start there.

All I know is Government should always be pushed down to the most local sectors possible. Down to states, to counties, to cities, to neighborhoods and even to the individual. All according to what makes logical sense, of course. But that should be the constant goal.

Unifying power and control over a large populous is always a bad idea.

What (if anything) should the government do? Surely you don't advocate privatization of EVERYTHING, right?
You listed it pretty well above.
Government should very first and foremost provide protection at the borders.

Secondly, it should provide infrastructure (roads, clean water, electricity, etc).

Third, if it's decided government should have money for education, I'd prefer to see that money given to private schools so people have a buffet selection of different flavors that emphasize a variety of things (even a religion).

If charity falls short on caring for those in legitimate (just assume it) need, should the government aid them?

Yes. But not without condition and not forever. Any aid the government gives should not to be taking people out of the slums, but instead take the slums out of people.

In other words, the governments job as far as that goes is primarily to provide fair "opportunity". If it is clear someone, for whatever reason, doesn't have it by no fault of their own, then the government could help them to get the point where they do.


In summary, giving all your trust, power, money to a government you blieve can/will "fix" everything better than anyone else, is somewhat noble and understandble.
The main difference between you and us, is you believe we should try to make that happen, and we don't believe it possibly can happen.

[thrustbucket]

Two points:

1) As a firm believer in non-government intervention and the promise of the free market, how many deaths are acceptable due to airline noncompliance with regular maintenance checks of their planes? Southwest, United, Delta, and others - all caused severe problems because they weren't maintaining their vehicles, or even giving them checkups. Some of the planes were in quite shoddy condition. So, in your view that all government is bad, all free market is good, the question stands: what is the number of deaths that is acceptable in order to maintain the freedom of the airline industry to check their own places when they see fit?

In that example I'd suggest stiff and painful fines for any corporation in which it was proven caused death or harm through neglect. I'm okay with that. The danger of that happening should be the driving motivator.

How much $ does the FAA get from the tax pool? It isn't like they are doing a real bang-up job in enforcing inspections and saftey lately....

[mykevermin]

In that example I'd suggest stiff and painful fines for any corporation in which it was proven caused death or harm through neglect. I'm okay with that. The danger of that happening should be the driving motivator.

That's communism, according to bmulligan. So if you die in a plane crash, or your child develops a lifelong illness as a result of the lead paint and chemicals on their "Playskool" toys, that's fine. The free market will adjust by no longer flying on Southwest (or Delta, or United, or...), and by no longer buying toys from companies that use cheap labor and cheaper components.

As for the individuals who suffer, oh well. There's a functional purpose to their death and suffering, and one that's much better than this "government oversight" crap.

How much $ does the FAA get from the tax pool? It isn't like they are doing a real bang-up job in enforcing inspections and saftey lately....

Dunno.

[fatherofcaitlyn]

Two points:

1) As a firm believer in non-government intervention and the promise of the free market, how many deaths are acceptable due to airline noncompliance with regular maintenance checks of their planes? Southwest, United, Delta, and others - all caused severe problems because they weren't maintaining their vehicles, or even giving them checkups. Some of the planes were in quite shoddy condition. So, in your view that all government is bad, all free market is good, the question stands: what is the number of deaths that is acceptable in order to maintain the freedom of the airline industry to check their own places when they see fit?


As many as possible.

After planes started falling out of the sky, the government could subpoena the airline's records and compare them to their inspections of the wrecks. If there was negligence, anybody touching that plane when it was out of spec would be (edit) charged with second degree murder (mechanics, pilots, stewards, baggage handlers, etc.).

[mykevermin]

Not in a true free market. Maybe in your country, comrade.

[thrustbucket]

Not in a true free market. Maybe in your country, comrade.

I'm not sure why that's communism. A free market can't work if corporations are allowed to hurt people, obviously. There must be SOME oversight, especially when things go wrong, to hold people accountable.

If it were communism, the airline would be owned by the government in the first place, not fining itself.

I would argue that if you pack an inflated set of departments to give massive oversight to an industry, that's closer to communism.

[mykevermin]

I'm merely playing devil's advocate on bmulligan's side.

He would argue that any government intervention is unnecessary. If the corporation harms someone, they harm themselves - after all, people will stop buying toys from an unreliable manufacturer, and people will stop flying on airlines whose planes crash.

Like people won't buy consoles that perpetually "red ring." ;)

I don't actually believe a thing I'm saying, mind you - just arguing poorly in the place of a hardcore laissez-faire type.

[camoor]

In that example I'd suggest stiff and painful fines for any corporation in which it was proven caused death or harm through neglect. I'm okay with that. The danger of that happening should be the driving motivator.

A new car built by my company leaves somewhere traveling at 60 mph. The rear differential locks up. The car crashes and burns with everyone trapped inside. Now, should we initiate a recall? Take the number of vehicles in the field, A, multiply by the probable rate of failure, B, multiply by the average out-of-court settlement, C. A times B times C equals X. If X is less than the cost of a recall, we don't do one.

Are there a lot of these kinds of accidents?

You wouldn't believe.

Which car company do you work for?

A major one..

[fatherofcaitlyn]

Not in a true free market. Maybe in your country, comrade.

If your incompetence causes harm to another, you're on the hook regardless of the market type.

[CocheseUGA]

Not in a true free market. Maybe in your country, comrade.


I missed when we started to be a true free market.

All the other stuff? Finals.

[bmulligan]

There is a difference between using your religion as a moral compass to help you steer you decision making and letting it navigate for you.

Of course there's a difference. I don't think anyone would attempt an counter to that. But implying that religion is a crutch to deal with ineffective government has got to be the epitome of political elitism. As if any president is more important to the well being of a country and it's people than a belief system of the people themselves. It's absolute proof that the governing elite, who make lifetime careers of public service are completely out of touch with human nature and the American spirit.

And Hillary calling Obama an elitist for this fundamental error is just icing on the cake for demonstrating my point.

[fatherofcaitlyn]

Clintons - $100 million salt of the earth people.

[bmulligan]

1) As a firm believer in non-government intervention and the promise of the free market, how many deaths are acceptable due to blah dee blah blah <insert any government institution here>

The government has every right to regulate interstate commerce. Let me ask you, Myke, how many deaths are acceptable due to the FDA approving drugs that should never have seen the light of day? You really think that just because a government regulation exists it's the right one? I'm sure that only applies only to the ones you agree with. How many people are being kept in poverty because of the sham of a war on poverty we've been fighting for 100 years. How many depressions has the federal reserve been responsible for since the fed act of 1913? How many drug dealers and bystanders have to be killed before we realize the war on drugs is a bad regulatory program?

2) You're a fraud, simply because you believe in this hackneyed notion of "freedom" and individual wealth and enterprise (as well as the power structure inherent in a meritocracy, or the more modern inheritocracy) - yet you're anti-Union. You believe in the power of big business to determine what portion of profit is theirs, and what portion their employees deserve. But you do not believe in the power of employees to form as a collective to increase their bargaining power. And don't give me that "unions today are corrupt" nonsense, because while that is certainly part and parcel of what killed Detroit (but by no means all), you're against the idea of unions. You deny the freedom to gather and use individual freedom in the name of power to those who desire to use it, yet you stand behind your flag of Adam Smith like some sort of untouchable American naturalist.

You amuse me, Myke. Yes, I'm a fraud because I believe in individual freedom and individual responsibility. I thik we've already determined, unquestionably, your misanthropic hatred of the individual who depends on no one but himself. Someone who is not in need of help cannot be corrupted by your destructive moral philosophy, or be indebted to you and forced into virtual slavery for repayment of debt.

You see, my primary belief is founded on the sanctity of the right of the individual to exist for his own sake. Governments are instituted among such men to protect those rights from transgressors. Governments that transgress must be forcibly removed and begun anew. You believe, however, that human beings exist for the sake of the whole, and their primary obligation is not to one's self, but to one's neighbor. The fact that you are alive, to you, means you owe a life debt to a stranger that can never be fully repaid. Mykes job, as he sees it, is to extract payment by any means necessary. The only fraud here is the one Myke touts every time he whips out his keyboard - convincing everyone that we are all slaves to each other. Go sell that shit to the other self-loathing, miserable souls who need salvation. You call them 'friends' or 'mentors'.

Contrary to your assumption, I believe unions have every right to exist. We all have the right to peaceably assemble and act as a group of special interest. Collectively deciding to strike, or quit, or make demands is human nature. There is power in numbers. Hence the formation of the political factions. Groups of like minded individuals acting in unison is how things get done, or undone as the case may be.

I think we both know, however, that most enterprises known as unions today represent only the propagation of their own bureaucracy and not their constituents interests as most may believe. Ever try to un-join a union in a union shop or disband an existing one, or form a competing one? Good luck. I'll send flowers to the funeral.


And Pizza-man - sorry, I'm just too lazy to respond to your wordiness right now. I appreciate the argument, just like I appreciate Myke's tenacity in the old-back-and-forth, but you just come off as a wee bit too young and naive to pick on. Myke's a little older and doesn't take my vitriol as personally as I think you might.

[camoor]

Yes, I'm a fraud because I believe in individual freedom and individual responsibility. I thik we've already determined, unquestionably, your misanthropic hatred of the individual who depends on no one but himself. Someone who is not in need of help cannot be corrupted by your destructive moral philosophy, or be indebted to you and forced into virtual slavery for repayment of debt.

You see, my primary belief is founded on the sanctity of the right of the individual to exist for his own sake. Governments are instituted among such men to protect those rights from transgressors. Governments that transgress must be forcibly removed and begun anew. You believe, however, that human beings exist for the sake of the whole, and their primary obligation is not to one's self, but to one's neighbor. The fact that you are alive, to you, means you owe a life debt to a stranger that can never be fully repaid. Mykes job, as he sees it, is to extract payment by any means necessary. The only fraud here is the one Myke touts every time he whips out his keyboard - convincing everyone that we are all slaves to each other. Go sell that shit to the other self-loathing, miserable souls who need salvation. You call them 'friends' or 'mentors'.

Contrary to your assumption, I believe unions have every right to exist. We all have the right to peaceably assemble and act as a group of special interest. Collectively deciding to strike, or quit, or make demands is human nature. There is power in numbers. Hence the formation of the political factions. Groups of like minded individuals acting in unison is how things get done, or undone as the case may be.

I think we both know, however, that most enterprises known as unions today represent only the propagation of their own bureaucracy and not their constituents interests as most may believe. Ever try to un-join a union in a union shop or disband an existing one, or form a competing one? Good luck. I'll send flowers to the funeral.


And Pizza-man - sorry, I'm just too lazy to respond to your wordiness right now. I appreciate the argument, just like I appreciate Myke's tenacity in the old-back-and-forth, but you just come off as a wee bit too young and naive to pick on. Myke's a little older and doesn't take my vitriol as personally as I think you might.

You read like the evil twin brother of Henry David Thoreau.

[camoor]

Clintons - $100 million salt of the earth people.

Poor Dubya. He can't help it - he was born with a silver foot in his mouth.

[Koggit]

"Elitist"? Who gives a shit. Anyone who's achieved half of what Obama has should feel like they're a better person than your average American. The man in charge of 300,000,000 Americans damn well better be superior to the average American.

What should be getting negative press here is the fact that Hillary is selling herself off as middle class. Blah blah mill worker, blah blah middle class, blah blah whiskey, blah blah. Bitch needs to STFU and acknowledge that a middle class alcoholic shouldn't be in the White House.

[CocheseUGA]

Congratulations. You just defined all politicians everywhere.

[bmulligan]

You read like the evil twin brother of Henry David Thoreau.

Actually, Thoreau is credited with one of my favorite aphorisms with which I wholeheartedly agree, and leads me to believe you've never really read Thoreau thoroughly. Here is the entire first paragraph from Civil Disobedience :

I heartily accept the motto,—“That government is best which governs least;” and I should like to see it acted up to more rapidly and systematically. Carried out, it finally amounts to this, which I also believe,—“That government is best which governs not at all;” and when men are prepared for it, that will be the kind of government which they will have. Government is at best but an expedient; but most governments are usually, and all governments are sometimes, inexpedient.

[pittpizza]

And Pizza-man - sorry, I'm just too lazy to respond to your wordiness right now. I appreciate the argument, just like I appreciate Myke's tenacity in the old-back-and-forth, but you just come off as a wee bit too young and naive to pick on. Myke's a little older and doesn't take my vitriol as personally as I think you might.

Riiiiiiiiight. Whatever you say "sir."

[camoor]

Actually, Thoreau is credited with one of my favorite aphorisms with which I wholeheartedly agree, and leads me to believe you've never really read Thoreau thoroughly. Here is the entire first paragraph from Civil Disobedience :

Thoreau also said "I am as desirous of being a good neighbor as I am of being a bad subject." You're only interested in one of these roles.

[pittpizza]

And Pizza-man - sorry, I'm just too lazy to respond to your wordiness right now. I appreciate the argument, just like I appreciate Myke's tenacity in the old-back-and-forth, but you just come off as a wee bit too young and naive to pick on. Myke's a little older and doesn't take my vitriol as personally as I think you might.

I just read this again this morning and have to tell you I think you have your roles reversed.

I am the one doin the pickin'. Pickin and a grinnin'!

But w/e, your response is telling: convenient and lazy (as you pointed out already).

[bmulligan]

Thoreau also said "I am as desirous of being a good neighbor as I am of being a bad subject." You're only interested in one of these roles.

You really have no concept of my politics - or my ethics.

There's a major difference between being forced to be a good neighbor under penalty of law and doing so willingly out of one's own volition and self interest. One is called freedom, one slavery. And you understand neither.

[thrustbucket]

You really have no concept of my politics - or my ethics.

There's a major difference between being forced to be a good neighbor under penalty of law and doing so willingly out of one's own volition and self interest. One is called freedom, one slavery. And you understand neither.

Very well said.

Which is why it amazes me that some people feel that if you don't agree everyone should be forced to pay a large portion of your income to the all-seeing ultimate charity, you are a selfish greedy person.

[dmaul1114]

Which is why it amazes me that some people feel that if you don't agree everyone should be forced to pay a large portion of your income to the all-seeing ultimate charity, you are a selfish greedy person.

I agree with that. Despite that I do favor wealth redistribution in the form of social service programs and limited welfare etc., I'm not going to insult those who disagree.

I just vote for people who support my views, and leave it at that.

[camoor]

You really have no concept of my politics - or my ethics.

There's a major difference between being forced to be a good neighbor under penalty of law and doing so willingly out of one's own volition and self interest. One is called freedom, one slavery. And you understand neither.

I know what you wrote here (IE your online persona)

You see, my primary belief is founded on the sanctity of the right of the individual to exist for his own sake. Governments are instituted among such men to protect those rights from transgressors. Governments that transgress must be forcibly removed and begun anew. You believe, however, that human beings exist for the sake of the whole, and their primary obligation is not to one's self, but to one's neighbor.

The temple of ME.

It's gone beyond government for you - it's an overriding life philosophy (read the first sentence in the quote above if you don't believe me)

Shades of grey don't exist in your black-and-white world, and anyone who disagrees with you is a dirty commie.

I never see you arguing against the abuses of corporate leaders when they form cartels, monopolies, or immoral and borderline illegal financial arrangements that deceive and exploit consumers and/or employees. I bet you really don't care if a corporation exploits your neighbor - just as long as you and your kin are not affected.

Yet when it's the little guy you want one more kick while he's down - he's done some perceived wrong to you because apparently the govt gave him a handout along the way (never mind that the super-rich are the people who get the biggest tax breaks). In the case of unions you're the first to point out that they have a tendency to be intrusive without acknowledging all of the abuses companies such as Walmart and Food Lion have committed in the absence of unions.

I see poor people do things that piss me off too (like when they can't pay their doctor's bills because they spent all of their welfare money on a top-of-the-line cell phone). But I also see many who labor hard in the background for shitty wages in the hopes their kids can make a better go of it, and I don't feel the need to pile on by protecting the poor defenseless mega-corpos against regulations passed by the big bad govt because I don't see the world through your green-tinted anarcho-capitalist glasses.

[bmulligan]

it's an overriding life philosophy
Exactly. Anyone who transgresses the sanctity of the individual and his right to his own life IS a dirty communist. The reason you're so angry is that you don't want to admit that to yourself - that you are a closet dirty communist and yet inherently selfish, worshiping at my temple and your own at the same time.


Yet when it's the little guy you want one more kick while he's down - he's done some perceived wrong to you because apparently the govt gave him a handout along the way (never mind that the super-rich are the people who get the biggest tax breaks). In the case of unions you're the first to point out that they have a tendency to be intrusive without acknowledging all of the abuses companies such as Walmart and Food Lion have committed in the absence of unions.

Now you're just confusing philosophy with politics. One is a subset of the other, but they are not both the same. How you come to the conclusion that I want to kick little guys when they are down because I believe in my right to my own life is not only a leap of the imagination, but a complete disconnect of the rational mind from the process of thought.

You've created this imaginary concept in your brain to try to wrap a definition of what I am, and the closest you can come to reality is that upside-down, backwards image of me kicking a dog. Try not to focus on the irrational, emotional reaction your undeveloped brain keeps signaling to your unconscious self. I realize it's difficult, especially when half your brain is trying to deny that basic truth that the mere fact that you exist at all is because of a selfish desire to be alive. It sucks when reality contradicts one's own thoughts about life. Those people usually end up in an institution, or become communists.


he's done some perceived wrong to you because apparently the govt gave him a handout along the way

Let me single this one out again for you as I've done many times in the past but you still can't comprehend: If I choose to cut off a piece of my hand and give it to someone it's called freedom. When Government givers charity, they cut off my hand without permission - that's called slavery, or forced labor, or theft, and a denial of my freedom and right to my own life.

So what do you stand for Camoor, freedom or slavery? Some things are black and white, good or evil, life or death. There ARE absolutes. Don't fool yourself again by thinking nothing can be reduced from shades of grey. The everything is grey argument that Pitpizza prefers is the real definition of anarchy, not the absence of government.

[camoor]

Very well said.

Which is why it amazes me that some people feel that if you don't agree everyone should be forced to pay a large portion of your income to the all-seeing ultimate charity, you are a selfish greedy person.

Who says that?

You get a break on your taxes if you donate money to charity, and to be honest if they repeal that law I won't be heartbroken because I think most ppl give to charity for other reasons. Faith based initiatives also get an infusion of Federal funding - please feel free to repeal that too, I'm not going to shed a single tear!

If you are saying that the American govt is an "all-seeing ultimate charity" then I would suggest that you read a report from the GAO. Have preemptive wars against Middle Eastern countries been redefined as charity?

[thrustbucket]

Who says that?[quote]
I am mostly referring to my discussion with pitpizza that he has opted out of.

[quote]If you are saying that the American govt is an "all-seeing ultimate charity" then I would suggest that you read a report from the GAO. Have preemptive wars against Middle Eastern countries been redefined as charity?

I'm not saying that the American govt currently is an all-seeing ultimate charity. I am saying that it seems pitpizza, and from what I've seen of mykevermin, perhaps you, others posting here, and most of the people I've talked to that love Obama - all believe the government's goals should be to be the all-seeing faultless ultimate charity. And that we should feel proud to have our taxes raised, or even redistributed, by a more so-called "caring" government.

[dmaul1114]

Exactly. Anyone who transgresses the sanctity of the individual and his right to his own life IS a dirty communist. The reason you're so angry is that you don't want to admit that to yourself - that you are a closet dirty communist and yet inherently selfish, worshiping at my temple and your own at the same time.


If you want to play offensive generalizations then I'd retort with something along the lines of people who don't think taxes should be raised to help the less fortunate are heartless bastards who only care about themselves and think the weak should die off.

Generalities like that, or your dirty communist comments get us no where. Things aren't that black and white. There are lots of shades of gray in between communism and supporting various forms of pubilc social services. Just like there are lots of shades of gray between not supporting our current welfare and social service system and wanting no charity public or otherwise and letting the weak die off.

[Ikohn4ever]

[quote=camoor;4269536]Who says that?[quote]
I am mostly referring to my discussion with pitpizza that he has opted out of.



I'm not saying that the American govt currently is an all-seeing ultimate charity. I am saying that it seems pitpizza, and from what I've seen of mykevermin, perhaps you, others posting here, and most of the people I've talked to that love Obama - all believe the government's goals should be to be the all-seeing faultless ultimate charity. And that we should feel proud to have our taxes raised, or even redistributed, by a more so-called "caring" government.


It is not charity, when people are taken care of they are less likely to commit a crime. Why would most people steal if they already had. It would be in everyone's best interest to eliminate poverty as much as possible. It drags everyone else down somehow. If kids in inner cities had more opportunities they would be less likely to end up incarcerated. So instead of creating a productive member of society that contributes, we have wards of the state that are a burden felt by all especially with the privatization of the jail system. You call it charity I call it a long term investment.

[thrustbucket]

It is not charity, when people are taken care of they are less likely to commit a crime.
When most people are "taken care of" they have little incentive to take care of themselves. Is that really what you want? A big dog with millions of fully grown dogs suckling on it's teets just to get rid of a little crime?

Why would most people steal if they already had. It would be in everyone's best interest to eliminate poverty as much as possible.
Agreed. So let's do it. Without handing out "free stuff".

It drags everyone else down somehow. If kids in inner cities had more opportunities they would be less likely to end up incarcerated. So instead of creating a productive member of society that contributes, we have wards of the state that are a burden felt by all especially with the privatization of the jail system. You call it charity I call it a long term investment.

And you can't do any of that through hand outs and checks showing up in those peoples mail every week that the American public was forced to sign. Your heart is in the right place, but your trust isn't.

Take the slums out of the people, not the people out of the slums.

You can throw all the money you want at people in dire straights. But if they can't find it in themselves to progress, move forward, and be productive, they won't. You are fooling yourself if every time you see a bum or homeless person you assume he wouldn't be there "if he was only given a chance".

So I'm all for institutions that work on the core or "spirit" of a person to do just that. Fortunately a lot of them them already exist and are self funded. Unfortunately, of course, the climate of tolerance in this country for religion is decaying. So I guess it's best if we force everyone to pay our "tithing" to the secular church of uncle sam and hope they do a better job, right?

I have already said in many many posts that I am fine with SOME help, as long as it's regulated, and as long as it is only to get a person on their feet to have the same opportunity as the rest of us have had. If they try to suck on that tit past that point...... then tough titty.

[fatherofcaitlyn]

It is not charity, when people are taken care of they are less likely to commit a crime.


Is charity equal to welfare?

[pittpizza]

Bmull, your McCarthyist tactics are as transparent as your mom's fishnets.

Thrust, I didn't opt out of squat. These tiffs are a distraction from work, not a pastime at home.

Really we've just got some fundamental differences of opinions. Bmull and thrust seem to think that everyone can take care of themselves and those that can't should just fuckin suffer. I just read Ayn Rand's The Fountainhead, and I have to admit, her protagonist Rourke makes a convincing case for precisely the same ideas, namely that individualism, self sufficiency, and hard work is all we need. Socialism is despicable.

Then there are others who think that we ought to take care of our own (not selves, but countrymen), whether it be through the higher tax brackets of the super-rich, windfall profits from health insurance, pharma, and oil companies, or reallocation of mis-spent tax dollars. We think severe economic inequality is bad, and the excesses of the excessive ought to be used to help raise up the lowest of the low. They advocate equality, justice and tolerance.

FoC poses an interesting question.

Bmull would say (correct me if I'm wrong bmull), that since the world is black and white, welfare is charity but forced, and since it is force it amounts to slavery and dirty commies and be afraid of the red scare....bomb shelters...drills... yada yada yada..... (McCarthy!)

I say yeah, charity is equal to welfare in a way. Maybe think of it as nationalized charity. It's a social compact sort of idea. I love America and live here and pay taxes and the government we've elected decided to have a welfare system. Some don't think we should do it and that is fine, but the government does, and they (in theory) reflect the will of the public right??? (okay, not lately anyway but in theory.)

Bmull and thrust say to leave that job to charities. Well guess what guys, we sort of have already! They're not up to snuff. So we have poor and sick and dieing (like every society I might add) that charity is not helping, so as a nation we've decided to help them: Da da da! WELFARE! **Cue "HERE I COME TO SAVE THE DAAAAAYYYYY" music**

BUUUUT, the story continues: welfare doesn't fucking work! I'll be the first to admit that democratic social welfare programs aren't the best they could be. But with improved use of tax dollars (books not bombs), investments in education, and significant change of attitude and social reform it COULD be better, though never perfect. My view is that we ought to try to make it better.

[thrustbucket]

Really we've just got some fundamental differences of opinions. Bmull and thrust seem to think that everyone can take care of themselves and each other and those that can't won't work hard when they have opportunity should just fuckin suffer.
Couple fixes there, but pretty close.


Bmull and thrust say to leave that job to charities. Well guess what guys, we sort of have already! They're not up to snuff. So we have poor and sick and dieing (like every society I might add) that charity is not helping, so as a nation we've decided to help them: Da da da! WELFARE! **Cue "HERE I COME TO SAVE THE DAAAAAYYYYY" music**
I have already said I don't mind helping the poor, if they are poor by no fault of their own. If they are born into an environment where they have an obvious disadvantage to the rest of us, then I don't mind giving them a temporary boost so that they have the same opportunities the rest of us have, if they want to WORK HARD and take advantage of it. If they don't, then they have chosen and the help should be removed. At that point they more or less deserve what they have, since the rest of us have to reap what we sew, so should they reap what they don't sew.

You need to remember that in this country, even today, if you live below the poverty line for a long time, it's VERY VERY VERY VERY VERY rare that it isn't your own damn fault. Unless you want to argue that there really are American Citizens out there that simply were never told that hard work is the answer.

As far as the sick, I don't mind government helping the severely mentally ill. We certainly don't want them running around causing chaos. ;)
As far as dying, are you referring to the type of "help" given to people like Terry Schiavo? ;) Oh wait, she wasn't anywhere close to dying.....

try[/B] to make it better.

I can more or less agree with you here. I do agree we should try to make things better and try to make things work. But I truly believe doing it any other way other than privatization, it will fail every time, and just end up raising our taxes for nothing.

[dmaul1114]

And you can't do any of that through hand outs and checks showing up in those peoples mail every week that the American public was forced to sign. Your heart is in the right place, but your trust isn't.

As a criminologist I agree with this...to a point.

Handouts alone aren't enough, too many people just take them and do nothing to better themselves.

Financial help is key, but it needs to come with strings attached that people have to be attending social programs, getting education and so forth to get on their feet. And the government needs to set aside sufficient funding for research of these programs to make sure they're having the attended effects, and to identify any problems that can be solved through tweaks or scrapping for a different type of program.

Doing things like this to get at the root causes of criminality is the best bet. Just throwing money at the problem won't work, and having programing without financial incentives to get people to participate won't work either. There needs to be a combination of the the two--welfare accompanied by required participation in programing.

[camoor]

[quote=camoor;4269536]Who says that?[quote]
I am mostly referring to my discussion with pitpizza that he has opted out of.



I'm not saying that the American govt currently is an all-seeing ultimate charity. I am saying that it seems pitpizza, and from what I've seen of mykevermin, perhaps you, others posting here, and most of the people I've talked to that love Obama - all believe the government's goals should be to be the all-seeing faultless ultimate charity. And that we should feel proud to have our taxes raised, or even redistributed, by a more so-called "caring" government.

Yeah, to be honest I don't like big govt.

Yet I'm now more of a pragmatist - at this point I've come to the realization that Dems are going to spend but Republicans are going to spend more. Dems are tax and spend, Republicans are spend and spend.

So if we're going to spend money I'd rather spend it on building gyms for inner-city Detroit teenagers then Tomahawk Missiles launched into Middle Eastern countries that don't want to be liberated. I might as well side up with people who share my live and let live social values over people who think a 2000 year-old book of inspired poetry and memoirs that's gone through many revisions and translations should be read literally and codified as law. I'd rather support politicians who give discounted health care to poor people then tax breaks to rich people.

When the Repubs are firmly voted out I'll go back to voting idealistically. But we have to get the Republicans out before they completely ruin our foreign relations and spend even more money on useless military quagmires!

[mykevermin]

As a criminologist I agree with this...to a point.

Handouts alone aren't enough, too many people just take them and do nothing to better themselves.

Financial help is key, but it needs to come with strings attached that people have to be attending social programs, getting education and so forth to get on their feet. And the government needs to set aside sufficient funding for research of these programs to make sure they're having the attended effects, and to identify any problems that can be solved through tweaks or scrapping for a different type of program.

Doing things like this to get at the root causes of criminality is the best bet. Just throwing money at the problem won't work, and having programing without financial incentives to get people to participate won't work either. There needs to be a combination of the the two--welfare accompanied by required participation in programing.

If you're speaking as a criminologist and not as an individual, you'll have, I expect, a couple of sources that demonstrate the argument you're making.

[dmaul1114]

If you're speaking as a criminologist and not as an individual, you'll have, I expect, a couple of sources that demonstrate the argument you're making.


No specifically, it's mainly just opinion as there's lacking research on that specifically, just opinion formed on seperated studes. i.e. just knowledge that welfare alone gets abused (see Code of the Streets for ethnographic examples) and that many studies of programs that work (be it drug rehab, drug courts, job training etc.) but often fail as people fall back into crime for lack of money and other resources.

Studies of prison programs show that ones that are multifacited and combine job training, education, cognitive skills training or psychological counseling are more effective as well (see the book What Works in Corrections by MacKenzie for review). So that also leads to my view that we need multifaceted programming. The welfare part is more just personal belief of a needed component.

I've not seen a full study that combined welfare type support with required social programming and tested it's effectiveness. That's just the logical next step, and where we need to design some programs and rigorously evaluate it.

BTW, no need to be such a prick. Pretentious assholes like you are why so many people hate us academics! :)

[pittpizza]

BTW, no need to be such a prick. Pretentious assholes like you are why so many people hate us academics! :)

I totally agree. Dont get me wrong myke, I like your posts and usually find them informative and well-reasoned (probably b/c I share a lot of your ideologies) and think you add a lot to the vs. forum, but why do you have to be such a holier-than-thou pretentious pro-wrestling fan?

[mykevermin]

No specifically, it's mainly just opinion as there's lacking research on that specifically, just opinion formed on seperated studes. i.e. just knowledge that welfare alone gets abused (see Code of the Streets for ethnographic examples) and that many studies of programs that work (be it drug rehab, drug courts, job training etc.) but often fail as people fall back into crime for lack of money and other resources.

You're going with an ethnography to discuss patterns of behavior? Not just in "northton" or whatever he calls Philly, but in general?

oh my.

Studies of prison programs show that ones that are multifacited and combine job training, education, cognitive skills training or psychological counseling are more effective as well (see the book What Works in Corrections by MacKenzie for review). So that also leads to my view that we need multifaceted programming.

There's ample evidence as to 'what works.' I'm just confused as to where welfare comes in.

The welfare part is more just personal belief of a needed component.

Then you're speaking as you, and not as a criminologist. I'm not speaking "as a criminologist" when I order my dinner, but I am when I'm citing research.

I've not seen a full study that combined welfare type support with required social programming and tested it's effectiveness.

Can't test policies that aren't in place.

That's just the logical next step, and where we need to design some programs and rigorously evaluate it.

What's logical about it? You, like the others here, have demonstrated that you have a fundamental misunderstanding about who is and is not on welfare (and for how long) - so I don't believe you are to be trusted to make any followup studies when your foundation is misinformed.

If you want to study programs with work and incentives, try those inner-city church drug rehab clinics that make all participants work to help earn money to fund the program.

BTW, no need to be such a prick. Pretentious assholes like you are why so many people hate us academics! :)

I'm not the one throwing around my profession and then backing it up with a personal opinion - so let's be careful about claiming pretension.

[dmaul1114]

You're going with an ethnography to discuss patterns of behavior? Not just in "northton" or whatever he calls Philly, but in general?

oh my.


Not starting with per se. Just one piece of the picture that led to my belief. Along with other ethnographic work. I'm a firm believer in using both qualitative and quantitative methods. It's the only way to do social science IMO. We're not the hard sciences where only quantitative results are relevant.


There's ample evidence as to 'what works.' I'm just confused as to where welfare comes in.


Not really, the evidence based crime prevention movement (Sherman et al., 1997; 2002) is relatively new and the evidence on most programs is mixed. Given that I have a masters and almost a Ph D at the university where that cited report was conducted (and suffered through two comprehensive exams here) I know that body of work pretty well.

Welfare comes do to what I see as a shortcoming of a lot of social programs--not giving people the assistance they need to get by while learning new skills, overcoming addictions, getting an education etc.


Then you're speaking as you, and not as a criminologist. I'm not speaking "as a criminologist" when I order my dinner, but I am when I'm citing research.

Now here you go being a pretention prick again. You must be loads of fun at a party.

Good research always starts with a mix of past results and new ideas based on this AND personal beliefs. The key is to not hold to the personal beliefs/ideas if subsequent research doesn't uphold them.

The field will never go anywhere if it's limited 100% to existing (and mostly crappy) research.



Can't test policies that aren't in place.


Which is why I said the next step is to design such a program/policy and conduct rigorous research on it.


What's logical about it? You, like the others here, have demonstrated that you have a fundamental misunderstanding about who is and is not on welfare (and for how long) - so I don't believe you are to be trusted to make any followup studies when your foundation is misinformed.

If you want to study programs with work and incentives, try those inner-city church drug rehab clinics that make all participants work to help earn money to fund the program.

Man,you truly are a pretentious, judgement asshole. You must be well liked in your department. :roll:

I said the welfare system is flawed. It's a mess. Those type of church programs are somewhat related.

What I want to see are studies of probation and parole programs that provide education, drop training, cognitive-behavioral training and so forth with financial incentives. Pay the people for participating as long as they meet the terms of the probation and parole to keep them involved. Then help them find jobs after they complete it.

Study the impact over that over time and see if it does any better than the 2/3rds recidivism rate we have now.



I'm not the one throwing around my profession and then backing it up with a personal opinion - so let's be careful about claiming pretension.

It's called a professional opinion, asshole. Again, innovation in research is done by fusing past results with personal experience and beliefs and then objectively researching the results and going back to the drawing board afterwards.

[bmulligan]

Bmull, your McCarthyist tactics are as transparent as your mom's fishnets.


And whose tactics are McCarthyistic? Let's refer to your following mis-statement about my philosophy:


... Bmull and thrust seem to think that everyone can take care of themselves and those that can't should just fuckin suffer. I

You consistently make this erroneous leap of faith by equating a self-reliant philosophy with allowing others to suffer and die. You have no basis in fact for this conclusion. I will state again that it is not for YOU, nor a group of YOUS, nor a majority of YOUS to decide what form of charity I give to another human being. The fact you believe government should be the entity to carry out your chosen charity and steal from individuals unwillingly makes you a dirty communist, statist, socialist, totalitarian, slave master, oppressor, or dictator - choose your title. It does not allow you to profess any belief in freedom whatsoever since you deny it de facto by your own beliefs. Read my signature - it's a perfect statement of your philosophy which is utterly irrational and inherently contradictory.

Bmull would say (correct me if I'm wrong bmull), that since the world is black and white, welfare is charity but forced, and since it is force it amounts to slavery and dirty commies and be afraid of the red scare....bomb shelters...drills... yada yada yada..... (McCarthy!)

That's probably the only time you've ever been close to being correct. I don't expect it will happen very often, but there it is.

I say yeah, charity is equal to welfare in a way. Maybe think of it as nationalized charity...
...welfare doesn't fucking work! I'll be the first to admit that democratic social welfare programs aren't the best they could be. But with improved use of tax dollars (books not bombs), investments in education, and significant change of attitude and social reform it COULD be better, though never perfect. My view is that we ought to try to make it better.

If only we could put more money into programs that don't work! Gosh, I think you just solved every problem we've ever had with America. Now if we could just confiscate ALL the money...

And you pretend not to realize your inner commie...

[pittpizza]

Oh geese. Look around Bmull, grey scales surround you.

And what's with the name calling? Why do you feel the need to put a label on everything?

You know by your definition about 99% of Americans would be communist, right?

Your position seems much more extreme than even thrustbucket's, who is in favor of some social welfare for those that legitimately can't take care of themselves (again, correct me if I'm wrong thrust). You don't believe that ANY form of sociel welfare should exist at all right? No schools, police, DOT's, or fire depts?

Lemme break it down for you: Every person (<--take notice, it's rare I speak in absolutes b/c I don't believe the world is B&W) in the world lives in some sort of society. Can't help it, it's in our nature, we're social creatures.

Now in these societies we give up some of our own personal freedoms in exchange for benefits. Ex: If I agree not to steal their apples, I can rest assured that they won't steal my apples. Now there are a whooooooole wide range of variables on this social contract, each one with different labels spanning from complete anarchy to an Orwellian version of 1984 with no clear lines deliniating where one ends and the other begins.

Just because I agree not to steal your apples does not make me communist, it makes me a good citizen. You seem to feel you're getting the short end of your social contract. Like you're giving up more than you're getting in return. I on the other hand, wish that the freedoms I gave up got me more bang-for-my buck; a funny choice of words since I feel those dollars should be spent on less foreign bangs in exchange for more domestic bucks.

Is there anything you feel your tax dollars should go towards? Hell, with the position you're taking even military expenditures on national defense inexcusably benefit the poor since the wealthy could build and hire forces to defend themselves.

[dmaul1114]

I will state again that it is not for YOU, nor a group of YOUS, nor a majority of YOUS to decide what form of charity I give to another human being. The fact you believe government should be the entity to carry out your chosen charity and steal from individuals unwillingly makes you a dirty communist, statist, socialist, totalitarian, slave master, oppressor, or dictator - choose your title.

The problem is human beings suck and are inherently self interested creatures.

If there is no form of wealth redistribution the world would be even more plagued by suffering, starvation and other maladies as there is no way enough people would give to charity out of the kindness of their hearts to make any kind of difference.

So if supporting wealth redistribution makes me a commie in some losers mind, so be it. It's a price I'm willing to pay, especially since my side has one that battle and we'll never (IMO) see a major economic leading nation not have income taxes with wealth redistribution and social program supported by tax dollars.



If only we could put more money into programs that don't work!


We need to put more money into rigorous research of all tax funded programs so we can evaluate what works and what doesn't and make the necessary tweaks.

[CocheseUGA]

We need to put more money into rigorous research of all tax funded programs so we can evaluate what works and what doesn't and make the necessary tweaks.

Spoken like a true politician.

[dmaul1114]

Spoken like a true politician.

No, spoken like a true researcher who depends on grants to do my work. :D But in all seriousness, I care about social issues (especially preventing crime) and that's why I got into this field. Research on what works is key.

Politicians just want to throw money at problems to win votes, they are generally less concerned about whether the programs they're funding are working as long as it's gettin them votes.

[CocheseUGA]

No, spoken like a true researcher who depends on grants to do my work. :D But in all seriousness, I care about social issues (especially preventing crime) and that's why I got into this field. Research on what works is key.

Politicians just want to throw money at problems to win votes, they are generally less concerned about whether the programs they're funding are working as long as it's gettin them votes.

Which is why throwing money at issues to find answers to said issues almost never works. The last thing I want the government to do is to be only slightly less ignorant about problems they themselves created.

[dmaul1114]

Which is why throwing money at issues to find answers to said issues almost never works. The last thing I want the government to do is to be only slightly less ignorant about problems they themselves created.

You're missing my point.

What needs to be done is for the government to work hand in hand with researchers to design programs that are grounded in past experience and sound theory and then to rigorous evaluate them to see if they work as intended and if not to tell us why they didn't work. The program can then be tweaked or scrapped if necessary.

That's the way to do it. Now if you're one of those government hating libertarians that doesn't believe in any form of social programing, then so be it. We'll have to agree to disagree as I don't waste my time on those marginalized types.

[mykevermin]

Not really, the evidence based crime prevention movement (Sherman et al., 1997; 2002) is relatively new and the evidence on most programs is mixed. Given that I have a masters and almost a Ph D at the university where that cited report was conducted (and suffered through two comprehensive exams here) I know that body of work pretty well.

First off, David Farrington is a fucking deterrence-pushing hack. That said, I do have respect for Lawrence Sherman's work.

Welfare comes do to what I see as a shortcoming of a lot of social programs--not giving people the assistance they need to get by while learning new skills, overcoming addictions, getting an education etc.

But it doesn't change the fact that you don't know the welfare literature, based on your assumption that it doesn't work - in fact, around 5% of all welfare recipients were 'lifers,' as it were (I can dig up some citations later on if you really need them).

Now here you go being a pretention prick again. You must be loads of fun at a party.

I am. Fill me up with Jameson, and I'm awesome. Even without the Jameson, I'm awesome. I'm also thick-skinned, so you can continue to dish it out. Meanwhile, back at the ranch, you can throw your credentials at me as much as you like, and I'll tip a pint to anyone who suffered through prelims. But I won't stand for someone who makes a statement that consists of "I am an expert in the field: here is an opinion." It's just an opinion guarded by a straw man of expertise.

I am a Ph.D. sociologist/criminologist, so I know that PS3 is better than the 360.

Good research always starts with a mix of past results and new ideas based on this AND personal beliefs. The key is to not hold to the personal beliefs/ideas if subsequent research doesn't uphold them.

Why can't new research be based on what you observe? Hey, look, people keep going out of prison and coming back? What might cause this? What are the theories that might explain this behavior?

I start with interesting phenomena or gaps in the literature, and see what the theoretical explanations are. Do I have opinions? Sure, but they stay at home on writing day. Fuck, some of the summary section in the first findings chapter of my dissertation I wrote yesterday - hell, most all of it - is full of arguments that I pretty much personally oppose (briefly, that the black-white gap in recidivism is stubbornly durable, in spite of over a dozen reasonably direct controls thrown at it - so the summary was more or less a chiding of theorists for allowing the gender gap to be explained by gender differences (the sort of Chesney-Lind/Messerschmidt/John Hagan theories), but suddenly developing cold feet and going all structural/institutional when explaining racial gaps (the sort of Elijah Anderson/William Julius Wilson/Massey and Denton "the community conditions are responsible for these racial gaps" argument)).

I don't agree with it as an opinion, but them's the beta coefficients.

The field will never go anywhere if it's limited 100% to existing (and mostly crappy) research.

Sure. Oranges are orange, too.

What I want to see are studies of probation and parole programs that provide education, drop training, cognitive-behavioral training and so forth with financial incentives. Pay the people for participating as long as they meet the terms of the probation and parole to keep them involved. Then help them find jobs after they complete it.

Study the impact over that over time and see if it does any better than the 2/3rds recidivism rate we have now.

1) Paying criminals post-term? Paying for programs? Job placement? Good luck selling that to the public as a way to spend their money.

2) Criminal classifications are in place via things like the LSI-R, programs are in place to target low-risk reoffenders - they aren't widespread enough yet, despite rehab programs, when *completed* (and let's be honest, rehab is available to too few people and not finished often enough), have a substantial effect on reducing recidivism.

It's called a professional opinion, asshole. Again, innovation in research is done by fusing past results with personal experience and beliefs and then objectively researching the results and going back to the drawing board afterwards.

You keep coming back to this belief thing as a means of defending an opinion you brought up under the guise of your 'professional opinion,' despite you not having a fuckin' clue. You originally said something along the lines of people "not bettering themselves" on welfare, which argues, implicitly, that you have a concern with welfare "lifers," or Reagan's "welfare queens." Which, as I stated, over 9 out of 10 welfare recipients drop out of the program before exhausting their eligibility - not exactly a rousing testament to the idea that people aren't bettering themselves.

[dmaul1114]

First off, David Farrington is a fucking deterrence-pushing hack. That said, I do have respect for Lawrence Sherman's work.

Yeah I'm no fan of his work, nor him personally having met him a few times at conferences my department hosted.


But it doesn't change the fact that you don't know the welfare literature, based on your assumption that it doesn't work - in fact, around 5% of all welfare recipients were 'lifers,' as it were (I can dig up some citations later on if you really need them).

Again, I wasn't really talking about welfare per se, but trying new programs with financial incentive to stay in treatments etc. to see if they work.


But I won't stand for someone who makes a statement that consists of "I am an expert in the field: here is an opinion." It's just an opinion guarded by a straw man of expertise.


It's still a more informed opinion that that of joe six pack that knows nothing about criminology research. I don't claim to be an expert, hell my interest lies mostly in crim theory and policing, not these kinds of correction programs. I was just forced to learn a good deal about them from comps and the focus of the criminal justice half of our department.


I am a Ph.D. sociologist/criminologist, so I know that PS3 is better than the 360.


That's a strawman. Gaming has nothing to do with sociology/criminology. While the current topic does so both of us are more informed than most others on parts of the discussion. So that point has no bearing on the current discussion.

I'm guessing your a sociologist, given that's where the pompous asses go, and part of the reason I sought out the top Criminology program and stayed away from sociology! ;)


I start with interesting phenomena or gaps in the literature, and see what the theoretical explanations are. Do I have opinions? Sure, but they stay at home on writing day.

I start at the same, but base the next steps on my research based on opinons of why things are happening. Observations work, but not when you're doing studies of things that have never been studied before and can't be observed (i.e. new types of police strategies).

So I often start with opinions on why something doesn't work or how a new program could work based on theory (that's weakly tested like all crim theory IMO) run the program and see what the results say. On writing day the opinion portion stays home, other than in the discussion section when interpreting the results and giving my opinion on what changes should be made and what future research should focus on.

End of story, we just do different types of research probably and have different takes on the best way to do it.




1) Paying criminals post-term? Paying for programs? Job placement? Good luck selling that to the public as a way to spend their money.


Definitely would be a tough sell. I just think it stand a reasonable chance to keep people in post release programs and keep them from drifting back into crime. But it may not work at all, that's an empirical question.



2) Criminal classifications are in place via things like the LSI-R, programs are in place to target low-risk reoffenders - they aren't widespread enough yet, despite rehab programs, when *completed* (and let's be honest, rehab is available to too few people and not finished often enough), have a substantial effect on reducing recidivism.

Definitely true. Part of my issue with such things is I worry less about the low-risk reoffenders. We need to focus on the high risk reoffenders. But in all we vastly need to expand rehab and other services for probationers and parolees across the board.

Is remuneration a necessary component? I don't know, but I'd like to see it given a shot. Preferably in a randomized experiment where some are assigned to programs without remuneration and some to programs with and see if the recidivism rates differ.

Again, that's how I like to work. Think up something new and see if it works. More traditional types of research bore me, but of course I do that shit too as you have to to get by in academia.



You keep coming back to this belief thing as a means of defending an opinion you brought up under the guise of your 'professional opinion,' despite you not having a fuckin' clue. You originally said something along the lines of people "not bettering themselves" on welfare, which argues, implicitly, that you have a concern with welfare "lifers," or Reagan's "welfare queens." Which, as I stated, over 9 out of 10 welfare recipients drop out of the program before exhausting their eligibility - not exactly a rousing testament to the idea that people aren't bettering themselves.

I didn't mean to imply that the lifers were widespread, as I know they are a minority. I just have personal issues with handouts that people do nothing for. That parts not my professional opinion, just personal.

I didn't mean to intertwine that with my desire to see a test of remuneration as incentive in criminal programming as that has nothing to do with the welfare system. I have no professional interest in the welfare system. That's for the pretentious sociologists to debate. This thread is just all over the fucking place so arguments are getting mixed up.

[mykevermin]

Yeah I'm no fan of his work, nor him personally having met him a few times at conferences my department hosted.

You're not all bad, then.

Again, I wasn't really talking about welfare per se, but trying new programs with financial incentive to stay in treatments etc. to see if they work.

Here's the precise thing you said that I take issue with:

As a criminologist I agree with this...to a point.

Handouts alone aren't enough, too many people just take them and do nothing to better themselves.

Your words, in context. First the qualifier ("I am an expert") and immediately following it, a broad and unsupported demonstration ("too many people take [handouts] and do nothing to better themselves").

Now you're getting awfully high and mighty about your own qualifications and attacking my own (at the same time you are insisting *me* of being pretentious!), while the root problem I have is that you merely presented an opinion about something under the guise that you're an expert, when your assertion is (to use the scientific terminology) "shit."

It's still a more informed opinion that that of joe six pack that knows nothing about criminology research. I don't claim to be an expert, hell my interest lies mostly in crim theory and policing, not these kinds of correction programs. I was just forced to learn a good deal about them from comps and the focus of the criminal justice half of our department.

Policing, eh? As long as you don't subscribe to the silly-ass James Q. Wilson view of the world. But, one might assume from your research findings opinion that you indeed do.

And I'm still unsure where someone strictly studying in a crim program develops the gall to talk about social support programs and simultaneously talk down to a sociologist. That's the way it works in your world, I suppose. Be sure to keep in mind, throughout these posts, who's the one reassuring who of their credentials. Here's a hint: you'll see in just a moment who's doing that.

That's a strawman. Gaming has nothing to do with sociology/criminology. While the current topic does so both of us are more informed than most others on parts of the discussion. So that point has no bearing on the current discussion.

My overall point is that your broad generalization that "too many people do nothing to better themselves with handouts" is not only completely useless because it *IS* a broad generalization, it's not something you are an expert in. Nor am I, to be frank; at least I've read some modicum of research on welfare usage trends.

I'm guessing your a sociologist, given that's where the pompous asses go, and part of the reason I sought out the top Criminology program and stayed away from sociology! ;)

Why'sat? So you can have fewer career options in front of you? ;)

I kid. Except I'm not. The CJ program at my university consists mainly of sociologists with a few exceptions. And, I'll have you know, if we're going to have *that* kind of dick-waving prickfight...you know what? I'm not going there. I know who I know, I know who's on my dissertation committee, I know who I've worked wit and studied under. They are who they are.

I start at the same, but base the next steps on my research based on opinons of why things are happening. Observations work, but not when you're doing studies of things that have never been studied before and can't be observed (i.e. new types of police strategies).

I just bristle at this "opinion" stuff. It obviously does exist to a degree, but also to the degree it clicks and interacts with the public and political environment at the time (which is why Martinson's lousy-ass research gave us 30 years of prison growth and idiocy-based deterrence/incapacitation policies). I don't use opinion. The idea of applying a theoretical understanding to research involves considering both those you like (structural causes of the racial gap in recidivism) and those you don't (cultural/mutually reinforced causes of the racial gap). Things I don't like tend to not enter my mind as opinions - otherwise, they'd be things I like. At that point, I'm just performing research to confirm my ideology.

So I often start with opinions on why something doesn't work or how a new program could work based on theory (that's weakly tested like all crim theory IMO) run the program and see what the results say. On writing day the opinion portion stays home, other than in the discussion section when interpreting the results and giving my opinion on what changes should be made and what future research should focus on.

That's a different type of opinion (the "let's play crappy policy maker" section of research and reports that soc and crim types are equally guilty of) from that which you allow to inform the start of your work.

End of story, we just do different types of research probably and have different takes on the best way to do it.

Lemme know if you know if performing event history analysis using a fixed-effects two-level nonlinear regression model requires the level-1 data to be 'stacked.' Seriously, because HLM is being a pain in my fucking ass today.

Definitely would be a tough sell. I just think it stand a reasonable chance to keep people in post release programs and keep them from drifting back into crime. But it may not work at all, that's an empirical question.

But why go all that way when education programs, combined with completed rehab, work? There's no evidence that job placement reduces recidivism (it's n.s. in my data results right now, fwiw, and that's not a change from most other research, save for the Chris Uggen stuff that shows well-paying jobs with advancement opportunities help reduce recid; "Burger King" won't have any effect).

Definitely true. Part of my issue with such things is I worry less about the low-risk reoffenders. We need to focus on the high risk reoffenders. But in all we vastly need to expand rehab and other services for probationers and parolees across the board.

Totally, as for rehab expansion. I don't know that I agree with not focusing on low-risk types; they're low-risk, not no-risk. There is evidence, I believe, that emphasizing working with low-risk offenders (the easiest to "fix") reduces recidivism because high-risk offenders are precisely that: high-risk.

Is remuneration a necessary component? I don't know, but I'd like to see it given a shot. Preferably in a randomized experiment where some are assigned to programs without remuneration and some to programs with and see if the recidivism rates differ.

That's best done outside of crim for right now, to see if real incentives matter. If it does work, then you can make a plausible case for expanding the study to consider criminals. But if you've got a hard sell in front of you, you're best off arming yourself with evidence that what you're claiming is plausible.

I didn't mean to imply that the lifers were widespread, as I know they are a minority. I just have personal issues with handouts that people do nothing for. That parts not my professional opinion, just personal.

I didn't mean to intertwine that with my desire to see a test of remuneration as incentive in criminal programming as that has nothing to do with the welfare system. I have no professional interest in the welfare system. That's for the pretentious sociologists to debate. This thread is just all over the fucking place so arguments are getting mixed up.

Still can't resist the digs, can ye? :lol:

As for the first paragraph in the quote above, I can see we're getting somewhere finally.

[mykevermin]

I need to edit my statement on Farrington: I was thinking of David Farabee. THAT guy is a deterrence-pushing fucking hackjob, not Farrington. I actually dig some of Farrignton's stuff, IIRC. Really heavy on the "self-control" kind Hirschi and Gottfredson school of things, I think.

Farabee. Farabee's the asshole.

[dmaul1114]

Here's the precise thing you said that I take issue with:

Your words, in context. First the qualifier ("I am an expert") and immediately following it, a broad and unsupported demonstration ("too many people take [handouts] and do nothing to better themselves").

Yeah, I worded that very poorly. That first part was just personal opinion. The criminologist qualification should have came later when giving my ideas about social programs and recidivism, not before my personal view of welfare.



Policing, eh? As long as you don't subscribe to the silly-ass James Q. Wilson view of the world. But, one might assume from your research findings opinion that you indeed do.


Actually, a lot of my work is on the broken windows crap (Wilson and Kelling, 1982). I'm not a fan of that view, but it's had a tremendous impact on policing with very little research and nearly no good research showing it works. I'm trying to fill that gap and hopefully show it isn't the best police strategy. So far my findings have been mixed, some parts supported and some challenged.



And I'm still unsure where someone strictly studying in a crim program develops the gall to talk about social support programs and simultaneously talk down to a sociologist. That's the way it works in your world, I suppose.


Yeah, criminologists get a lot of shit from sociologists, so we dish it back at every chance we get! Just a consequence of being belittled as a bastard step child of a discipline. :D

That said it's not bad at my school since we have the top ranked criminology program while the sociology program here, while decent, isn't nearly that highly regarded.


My overall point is that your broad generalization that "too many people do nothing to better themselves with handouts" is not only completely useless because it *IS* a broad generalization, it's not something you are an expert in. Nor am I, to be frank; at least I've read some modicum of research on welfare usage trends.

Like I said, that was just my personal opinion and I didn't mean to tout myself as an expert on welfare. And I stand by the opinion. 5% of lifers is too much. Anything much over 0 is too much. Welfare is help to get back on one's feet. It needs to be limited in time and bundled with efforts for people to fend for themselves. Non-disabled people shouldn't be able to live long term off the government, lazy people don't deserve it--even if it's 5% or less.



Why'sat? So you can have fewer career options in front of you? ;)


Because I know exactly what I want to do so I don't need many options and people from my program have no problems getting jobs right away.


I kid. Except I'm not. The CJ program at my university consists mainly of sociologists with a few exceptions. And, I'll have you know, if we're going to have *that* kind of dick-waving prickfight...you know what? I'm not going there. I know who I know, I know who's on my dissertation committee, I know who I've worked wit and studied under. They are who they are.


Plenty of world renowned criminologists in my department and committee as well. and of course a lot are sociologists as there weren't many separate crim programs around 20-30 years ago when the senior faculty were graduating. Most consider themselves criminologists now though and mos to the junior faculty have crim degrees.



I just bristle at this "opinion" stuff. It obviously does exist to a degree, but also to the degree it clicks and interacts with the public and political environment at the time (which is why Martinson's lousy-ass research gave us 30 years of prison growth and idiocy-based deterrence/incapacitation policies). I don't use opinion. The idea of applying a theoretical understanding to research involves considering both those you like (structural causes of the racial gap in recidivism) and those you don't (cultural/mutually reinforced causes of the racial gap). Things I don't like tend to not enter my mind as opinions - otherwise, they'd be things I like. At that point, I'm just performing research to confirm my ideology.


Just have to agree to disagree here. Opinion always comes into research, better to have it out at the forefront and challenge it head on empirically than to have it eek out in later stages of research.

To be clear, I'm not biased by opinion. While I hate broken windows policing and the thesis itself, I'm perfectly fine with the parts of my results that support it and would be fine if my work ultimately ends up proving it is a successful and useful strategy.

But starting with my opinion on the theory and the body of work on it, I'm able to pick it apart and set up ways to test it that haven't been done so we can be sure one way or the other whether it is a good idea.



Lemme know if you know if performing event history analysis using a fixed-effects two-level nonlinear regression model requires the level-1 data to be 'stacked.' Seriously, because HLM is being a pain in my fucking ass today.


I hate methods and don't know a lot about HLM, so I'm of no help. Will probably have to learn HLM and/or LISREL soon though. :(


But why go all that way when education programs, combined with completed rehab, work? There's no evidence that job placement reduces recidivism (it's n.s. in my data results right now, fwiw, and that's not a change from most other research, save for the Chris Uggen stuff that shows well-paying jobs with advancement opportunities help reduce recid; "Burger King" won't have any effect).

I like Uggen's work, so that's probably part of my reasoning. But in all recidivism is still high and there's not enough evidence on these education programs that I'm confident of them--especially with high risk offenders.

My other reasoning is all the theoretical stuff that's pretty well accepted that offenders are short-sited. Thus it's reasonable to assume that it's hard for them to see the long-term benefit to suffering through these programs. If they get paid to do so, they have a short-term incentive to stay in them, and hopefully that will improve the long-term outcomes. But again, those are empirical questions.



Totally, as for rehab expansion. I don't know that I agree with not focusing on low-risk types; they're low-risk, not no-risk. There is evidence, I believe, that emphasizing working with low-risk offenders (the easiest to "fix") reduces recidivism because high-risk offenders are precisely that: high-risk.


I don't mean to imply that low-risk offenders get nothing. Just that we don't give up the high risk offenders as they pose more danger to society. If they have to be released, they need the most attention as they tend to be the most serious (i.e. violent) offenders AND the most likely to reoffend.


That's best done outside of crim for right now, to see if real incentives matter. If it does work, then you can make a plausible case for expanding the study to consider criminals. But if you've got a hard sell in front of you, you're best off arming yourself with evidence that what you're claiming is plausible.


Like I said, it's not my main area of interest so it's not something I'd try to tackle anyway. It could well be best done outside of crim. I'm just curious to see the results, not interested in where they come from. My work will likely remain in policing and hopefully expand into more crim theory stuff once I get the Ph D done. Haven't had a time to do much in that arena since I work with a policing scholar.

[dmaul1114]

I need to edit my statement on Farrington: I was thinking of David Farabee. THAT guy is a deterrence-pushing fucking hackjob, not Farrington. I actually dig some of Farrignton's stuff, IIRC. Really heavy on the "self-control" kind Hirschi and Gottfredson school of things, I think.

Farabee. Farabee's the asshole.

Ah, I'm not familiar with Farabee.

Farrington is definitely not supportive of Gottfredson and Hirschi!! He was part of that huge debate with them over the age crime curve/criminal careers through the 1980s. His interests are in developmental/life course criminology--pretty much the opposite of the low self control, people don't change views of G&H. I'm more of that view too--hate The General Theory or Crime. More of a fan of General Strain Theory (Agnew) myself, especially his revised integrative versions of the theory.

http://www.crim.cam.ac.uk/about/people/biog.html?recordID=24

[mykevermin]

Fair enough all around.

Guess I'm not only wrong about Farrington, I'm dead wrong. It happens. That's twice now today, seeing as how I first thought he was Farabee.

Either way, I always associate Sampson and Laub with life-course crim, but those two do so much bloody work they might be their own crim department anyway.

[dmaul1114]

Either way, I always associate Sampson and Laub with life-course crim, but those two do so much bloody work they might be their own crim department anyway.

Yep, they introduced that theory (Laub's in my department).

Farrington's work was on criminal careers, habitual offenders that kind of incapacitation-oriented stuff--at least his work in the 80s when they were debating G&H. I haven't read as much of his newer stuff to know if he sticks by that stuff, or is more into the turning points stuff now (or has dropped that angle all together).

[mykevermin]

ho ho! so you're in the same department as David Kirk, then? I just read Kirk's article in Demography (I think) on neighborhood effects on racial disparities in arrest.

I'm also very interested to see how his work on neighborhood effects of those displaced by Katrina; but, I reckon I'm not supposed to know he's working on that.

[dmaul1114]

Yep. He's giving a lecture on social network analysis this Monday. I don't think the Katrina work is secret, he gave a talk on it on campus a while back.

[bmulligan]

Oh geese. Look around Bmull, grey scales surround you.

And what's with the name calling? Why do you feel the need to put a label on everything?

You know by your definition about 99% of Americans would be communist, right?

Your position seems much more extreme than even thrustbucket's, who is in favor of some social welfare for those that legitimately can't take care of themselves (again, correct me if I'm wrong thrust). You don't believe that ANY form of sociel welfare should exist at all right? No schools, police, DOT's, or fire depts?


Your entire method of morality seems to be whatever pragmatic solution feels best at the moment of necessity. Calling you what you are is not "name-calling". The fact that you take offense to my label for your philosophy means you don't understand your own principles, or why you have them, and where they come from. Either that or you are trying to obfuscate the truth, purposefully.

Now we come to another crux in your belief system that makes me cringe when you tout your profession as a lawyer. I honestly can't believe you are the future of the legal system with your misconceptions of government, law, philosophy, and morality. You have a fundamental failure of understanding the social contract. Police and fire departments, schools, and garbage pickup are not social welfare programs. You need to rethink your entire basis for opinion since you don't seem to know A from B.


Now in these societies we give up some of our own personal freedoms in exchange for benefits. Ex: If I agree not to steal their apples, I can rest assured that they won't steal my apples. Now there are a whooooooole wide range of variables on this social contract, each one with different labels spanning from complete anarchy to an Orwellian version of 1984 with no clear lines deliniating where one ends and the other begins.

Just because I agree not to steal your apples does not make me communist, it makes me a good citizen. You seem to feel you're getting the short end of your social contract. Like you're giving up more than you're getting in return. ...

The fact is that you have not only agreed to steal my apples, you have colluded with others to do so by force, and believe it's just and moral because a majority have deemed it to be. You have decided, like a dictator, the number of apples everyone should have, regardless of who toiled the orchards and labored to pick and clean the apples, and deliver them to market. 99% of people may indeed think like you, that does not make them correct in agreeing to steal my apples for the common good - no matter what they determine to be good.

How you can equate the confiscation of my tax dollars to give to poor people as the same as agreeing "not to steal my apples" is yet another example of a complete disconnect between reality and your capacity for rational thought. Not only is the error in comparison absolute, it's been completely reversed. Philosophical bankruptcy is one thing, but how you can even exist in a state of self-denial and philosophical nihilism. You have one up on Descartes - cause you're still here.

You've also incorrectly extrapolated my position against welfare to mean I do not agree with any taxes altogether. It's a common tactic used by your kind - especially myke, although when he does it he KNOWS he's doing it. It's yet another baseless slur on my beliefs, and MY kind, that is wholeheartedly untrue.

If anyone is to be accused of "name calling", it's you. Since you have no rational, coherent, or consistent argument about your own belief system, you would choose to impute a completely false attribute to mine. I suppose the next illogical step is to play the race card. You moral relativists usually follow the same predictable pattern, so that's my guess.

[dmaul1114]

If anyone is to be accused of "name calling", it's you.

Umm.....

... makes you a dirty communist, statist, socialist, totalitarian, slave master, oppressor, or dictator

Congratulations on making yourself look like an ass. :applause:

[bmulligan]

Umm.....
... makes you a dirty communist, statist, socialist, totalitarian, slave master, oppressor, or dictator

Congratulations on making yourself look like an ass. :applause:

I suppose you prefer euphemisms or nice-speak instead of honesty. I prefer to call a thief, a thief - no matter who he wants to help with the money he forcibly stole from me, or any other cause he determines is more worthy than being in my own pocket, preparing for MY family's future.

Bad deeds done with good intentions will not buy you a place in heaven. Neither will allowing an evil philosophy to propagate itself as a "caring" one be beneficial to a society that is based on individual freedom.

[dmaul1114]

I could give a shit what you call it, and personally don't care what you think about anything. Period.

I just couldn't resist pointing out denying name calling a couple posts where you did just that multiple times, in a thread where you've done nothing but spout rhetoric and resort to petty name calling.

Welcome to my ignore list.

[bmulligan]

Truth is not name-calling. I have not stated anything false about his, or I assume your, views against someones right to individual liberty and property. He denies both as a detriment to the common good and would falsely accuse me of kicking people when they are down, being uncaring and heartless.

I would expect nothing less than someone who shares his philosophy to ignore truth and make a conscious decision to deny reality. Suppression of others' points of view is typical for people who purport the free exchange of ideas but really want nothing of the kind.

Ignore away! It's no great loss.

[mykevermin]

You're better than that, toots.

It's one thing to say "communist" or "socialist." While incorrect labels, at least they have defined ideologies behind them. There are arguments about what they mean, of course, so it's a less tangible noun than, say "brick," or "mailbox." But much more ambiguous than "dirty," "oppressor," or "slave master."

Those kinds of phrases, coupled with this "I'm just telling the truth" nonsense, is Ann Coulter's domain. Not yours.

We can argue about whether or not communism necessarily means slavery, or whether or not laissez-faire capitalism necessarily carries slavery with it as well. We can, and will, go rounds until the end of time.

But my overall point here is that you're smarter than the average bear, despite your ideologies. You're also better than the average person who throws out loaded phrases and hyperbole and then claims to be a truth-teller who denies the imposition of their beliefs on the words they use - as if the words can stand on their own outside of you!

Christ, dude.

[camoor]

I would expect nothing less than someone who shares his philosophy to ignore truth and make a conscious decision to deny reality. Suppression of others' points of view is typical for people who purport the free exchange of ideas but really want nothing of the kind.

Ignore away! It's no great loss.

I rarely agree with you, but I have to agree with this comment.

Some people are way too ignore-happy.

I hate censorship in all forms, but I understand it a bit better now that I can see what happens to a community when everyone is given a mute button.

[daroga]

I have less problems with people ignoring someone. My issue is more with people presenting that as like the be-all, end-all in victories. "HA! You are wrong because this has caused me to put you on IGNORE!" Don't gloat about it; don't even mention it. If you really don't want to see someone's posts, just ignore them and move on.

/derail

Carry on...

[pittpizza]

But my overall point here is that you're smarter than the average bear, despite your ideologies. You're also better than the average person who throws out loaded phrases and hyperbole and then claims to be a truth-teller who denies the imposition of their beliefs on the words they use - as if the words can stand on their own outside of you!

Christ, dude.

Obviously he isn't.

[mykevermin]

Don't gloat about it; don't even mention it. If you really don't want to see someone's posts, just ignore them and move on.

word to your mother.

[dmaul1114]

I have less problems with people ignoring someone. My issue is more with people presenting that as like the be-all, end-all in victories. "HA! You are wrong because this has caused me to put you on IGNORE!" Don't gloat about it; don't even mention it. If you really don't want to see someone's posts, just ignore them and move on.


I just mention it always so people know not to bother responding to my posts since I wont' see their replies....not to gloat. I couldn't care less about winning or losing arguments with random losers on the net.

That said, I'm just going to stay out of the politics forum as I'm set in my ways and don't care about other's views on the topic--especially from people on this forum that's rapidly devolving to gamefaqs levels of discourse overall.

[daroga]

I just mention it always so people know not to bother responding to my posts since I wont' see their replies....not to gloat. I couldn't care less about winning or losing arguments with random losers on the net.

That said, I'm just going to stay out of the politics forum as I'm set in my ways and don't care about other's views on the topic--especially from people on this forum that's rapidly devolving to gamefaqs levels of discourse overall.Yeah, I wasn't necessarily implicating you with that. I've just seen it used in that regard and it's silly.

Generally speaking, the vs. forum has some of the most intelligent conversation on the boards. Maybe the most frustrating too, because usually it's dealing with far more important things than which GTA4 version to get. Likewise, I think just about everyone that posts here is at your same level of commitment to their beliefs, views, etc. I don't post here to persuade or be persuaded, but generally just to get a better idea of what and how other people are thinking. If you go at it from that angle, it's a far better experience. :)

[camoor]

I just mention it always so people know not to bother responding to my posts since I wont' see their replies....not to gloat. I couldn't care less about winning or losing arguments with random losers on the net.

That said, I'm just going to stay out of the politics forum as I'm set in my ways and don't care about other's views on the topic--especially from people on this forum that's rapidly devolving to gamefaqs levels of discourse overall.

The original Darth Maul was never big on talking things out either ;)

[mykevermin]

Yeah, I wasn't necessarily implicating you with that. I've just seen it used in that regard and it's silly.

Generally speaking, the vs. forum has some of the most intelligent conversation on the boards. Maybe the most frustrating too, because usually it's dealing with far more important things than which GTA4 version to get. Likewise, I think just about everyone that posts here is at your same level of commitment to their beliefs, views, etc. I don't post here to persuade or be persuaded, but generally just to get a better idea of what and how other people are thinking. If you go at it from that angle, it's a far better experience. :)

FUCKING POP-IN DUDE!

Pop-in. Who wants to get that Xbox 3-shitty version now, huh!?!?!?!?!

;)

[fatherofcaitlyn]

I can be persuaded, but only by the truth.

[daroga]

I can be persuaded, but only by the truth.Generally speaking, the threads here aren't fact vs. lie; they're opinion vs. opinion. Not always, but usually.

And myke, you're such a fanboy. :P

:whee:

[mykevermin]

Heh. Truth be told, I was up writing late last night and occasionally glanced over at the 4+ GTAIV threads (not the designated LinkinPrime "Official Disscussion and Info" threads, mind you ;)), and they were all

"POP-IN!"
"3.3GB INSTALL!"
"15microseconds faster loading!"
"DLC!"
"Um...DLC too!"

That, after reading those (and being sour because I'm tired from writing, much like I am right now), I almost said "you know what? I really have better things to do than spend time on this site" and never come back.

Didn't happen, of course - but I think I've hit my threshold when I read so much stupidity and just think to myself "not even gonna bother."

[pittpizza]

The vs. threads are hit or miss. There are some great posters here, but it can be tough b/c these topics (politics, religion, breast size, etc..) are held near and dear, at the core of people's belief systems.

Whoever said that people don't come here to get their opinions changed is right. They don't. It can be tough to change people's opinions when they're not based in fact or reason.

At the same time though, I have learned and had some of my views changed (or tweaked) from some of the reading I've done. The degree of the effectiveness of deterrence (from my first week on CAG IIRC) is one of these issues.

Some threads are just appalling but most seem to be thought out, on topic, and mostly avoid insults and flames.

I'm a huge advocate of deferring to the experts (most lawyers are, lol). Some members obviously know more about certain topics than others: not many are going to challenge myke about criminology, nor daroga re: bible study. At the same time, I'm not easily convinced that one is an expert, nor that they know more than me about a given topic until they've proven so.

Just FYI: I think it is interesting to note and learn from different people's posting/arguing styles. Many (BMull, myke, myself, etc.) like to participate front and center, while others like to throw jabs from the sidelines (evanft, Ikohn). Then there are others who are just completely fuckin off their rocker (not gonna name names) and spout the most absurd and ridiculous shit, that people from both sides of the issue are ROFL.

[thrustbucket]

I can be persuaded, but only by the truth.

Unfortunately 90% of what is labeled as truth these days was either "discovered" by an agenda driven engine or is still relative anyway.



Whoever said that people don't come here to get their opinions changed is right. They don't. It can be tough to change people's opinions when they're not based in fact or reason.
I said that last week. Maybe it was me.


I'm a huge advocate of deferring to the experts (most lawyers are, lol). Some members obviously know more about certain topics than others: not many are going to challenge myke about criminology, nor daroga re: bible study. At the same time, I'm not easily convinced that one is an expert, nor that they know more than me about a given topic until they've proven so.
I agree with you, kind of.

I concede that there are people here that have spent far more time than I have studying a certain topic. But that doesn't make me consider their opinions and posts more than anyone else.

When it's all said and done, most people have their mind made up about the world, and reality. And they are only going to seek out, study, and regurgitate that which reinforces that reality.

Just FYI: I think it is interesting to note and learn from different people's posting/arguing styles. Many (BMull, myke, myself, etc.) like to participate front and center, while others like to throw jabs from the sidelines (evanft, Ikohn). Then there are others who are just completely fuckin off their rocker (not gonna name names) and spout the most absurd and ridiculous shit, that people from both sides of the issue are ROFL.

I'm assuming you are referring to me in the latter category. Bravo if so!

But, pizza, I actually enjoyed this post of yours and I agree with most of it.

For what it's worth, what I come to this forum for, and what I get out of it, is just trying to learn about other people's opinions. I am not out to convince anyone they are wrong or that I am right. Chances are minimal anyone will change my mind, I think the rest of you feel the same way.
I just feel there is great value in understanding where others come from, and why they think differently than me.