If you could vote for one of the four, which one?

[quote name='mykevermin']What if I said "McCain will win *just because* people are racist and Republicans are surgical practitioners when it comes to attack politics - so they've created this untrustable, potentially muslim, persona in Obama. The idiots will come out in droves to make sure we don't have a black person in the white house."?

Is that accurate to you?[/QUOTE]

I'm not the poster you were responding to, but I think both sides have "attack politics" down. They just do them in different fashions. For instance while you might mention republicans in the way their attack ads have been in the past few elections, take a look at the massive pro-democrat attack politics there are in Hollywood which have no republican equivalent. Both camps have attack politics, they just each specialize in different areas.

As for Obama, I think it will be a challenge for him to overcome the large chunk of racists & anti-Islamic (after 9/11, this seems to have sprung up for obvious reasons) people that are in the US, as well as some of the disgruntled Hillary faction which now may be gunning for McCain due to the VP pick. Then again, after watching the Jeremiah Wright videos its pretty clear some racists will also be voting for Obama as well, so that may balance things a bit. Race & gender will most definitely play a larger factor for a lot of people voting this season than any previous again for obvious reasons, regardless of the specific race or gender of voters being discussed.
 
[quote name='Ruined']I'm not the poster you were responding to, but I think both sides have "attack politics" down. They just do them in different fashions. For instance while you might mention republicans in the way their attack ads have been in the past few elections, take a look at the massive pro-democrat attack politics there are in Hollywood which have no republican equivalent. Both camps have attack politics, they just each specialize in different areas.[/QUOTE]

What in the world are you talking about here?
 
[quote name='mykevermin']I do wish you'd stop trying to diminish how Obama has plans that are well thought-out and people are attracted to, instead of going for "people r stoopid and vote for Obama cuz he's ka-ris-ma-tik" claims. Moreover, whatever your political stripe, there's no denying that the attitude in this country is fucking sour towards the past 8 years of Republican abuses of power, lies, deceit, and inequality. That's not Obama's fault, and his charisma doesn't immediately mean people forget about that.

What if I said "McCain will win *just because* people are racist and Republicans are surgical practitioners when it comes to attack politics - so they've created this untrustable, potentially muslim, persona in Obama. The idiots will come out in droves to make sure we don't have a black person in the white house."?

Is that accurate to you?[/QUOTE]

Point taken.

But I have not seen any detailed plans that Obama has laid out that are any different than what's been coming out of the Democrats for 10 years now. If you feel I'm wrong, please link me.

That's why I think his draw is 80% charisma, and 20% the same thing the Democrats have been saying for a while now about their plans, it's just so much more appealing coming from Obama.
 
[quote name='mykevermin']I do wish you'd stop trying to diminish how Obama has plans that are well thought-out and people are attracted to, instead of going for "people r stoopid and vote for Obama cuz he's ka-ris-ma-tik" claims. Moreover, whatever your political stripe, there's no denying that the attitude in this country is fucking sour towards the past 8 years of Republican abuses of power, lies, deceit, and inequality. That's not Obama's fault, and his charisma doesn't immediately mean people forget about that.
[/QUOTE]

Exactly. Thrust isn't seeing "what feels so right" about him not because he's a great speaker and thrust is immune to charisma, but because thrust is a libertarian and clearly Obama's plans will and should feel wrong to him if he's firm in his beliefs.

But that post is just exactly why I can't stand Thrusts postings. Rather than write out a thought out response about exactly why he Obama doesn't "feel so right" to him by showing where he thinks his policies are bad, he makes a post bashing people as sheep who are hypnotized by Obama's speaking ability.

fuck that. We're not hypnotized, we have listened to his speeches and read his policy outlines and agree with them. They feel right to us.

They're not going to feel right to Thrust because of his beliefs which are diametrically opposed to those of us or Obama. He'll I'd vote for McCain or a 3rd term of Bush before I'd vote for a libertarian candidate that shared all of Thrusts views.

But it would be nice if Thrust would make substantive posts instead of always just posting nonsense like this to bash the other side rather than to take the time to explain his views. But cest le vie. He's a lost cause on this issue.

[quote name='thrustbucket']Point taken.

But I have not seen any detailed plans that Obama has laid out that are any different than what's been coming out of the Democrats for 10 years now. If you feel I'm wrong, please link me.
[/QUOTE]

http://www.barackobama.com/issues/

Read policy by policy there, and his blueprint for america pamphlet.

I'd agree that his policies aren't radically different than the Dems in recent years, but I was a very strong supporter of Gore and Kerry as well.

I may be a bit more behind Obama, but a lot of that is motivation after suffering through 8 years of Bush-Cheney than anything to do with his speeches. Though I'll admit his speeches don't hurt anything.
 
[quote name='dmaul1114']
But that post is just exactly why I can't stand Thrusts postings. Rather than write out a thought out response about exactly why he Obama doesn't "feel so right" to him by showing where he thinks his policies are bad, he makes a post bashing people as sheep who are hypnotized by Obama's speaking ability.
[/QUOTE]

I was merely making an observation about the overall "Feeling" of Obama's approach on a personal level. Which, like it or not, is what sways more people in elections than all the detailed plans in the universe, so it's more than relevant to talk about.

For further example, McCain reminds me a lot of my uncle. My uncle who has been telling me he is just about to get huge million dollar investors for his company-of-the-month any day now. He's always on the virge of hitting it big and getting everyone in the family a fat job that wants one. This has been going on for 15 years. He is the ultimate boy who cries wolf. And for some reason McCain gives me that same feeling of cautious "sure you will" feelings.

But sometimes how a candidate makes us "feel" turns out to not be accurate: Bush came across as a guy that truly believed in his convictions. Like his policies or not, he felt like the type of person that would stick by what he believed hell or high water. This is somewhat assuring to people who are tired of getting backstabed after the ballot is cast. It turns out that much of that was horse shit. For example, none of what he said about border security was worth a damn, and millions voted for him last election because of that one issue.

You can whine and bash me all you want for not digging deep into the policies of the politicians and dissecting what we like and what we don't. I'm sorry, but I think we've done that to death already. You so nicely pointed out in your post that you think I'm libertarian, you already "know" what I believe politically and you disagree with it, so what would it benefit to discuss Obama's expensive plans for "What can your country do for you" policies further?

I mean, if you really love merry-go-rounds, I'll oblige you, but I figured most people would like to be spared more of the same "Well I guess we have to agree to disagree" banter. Which is why I thought it was worth while to discuss how candidates simply come across. Any student of sociology 101 knows that 90% of what we think of a person we decide in the first few minutes in how they present themselves.

If you think that's not worth discussion, then find another thread where you can argue why Obama kicks ass on what you deem more "substantive" mattes..
 
[quote name='thrustbucket']I was merely making an observation about the overall "Feeling" of Obama's approach on a personal level. Which, like it or not, is what sways more people in elections than all the detailed plans in the universe, so it's more than relevant to talk about.
[/QUOTE]

Yeah, but most of these people who lack the capacity for abstract thought don't bother spending time reading and posting on a political forum.

If you're going to participate here you should be able to think about and discuss issues more than these sheeple that just vote because of the impression someone gave them.

If not, you add nothing and shouldn't waste your time or our time.
 
[quote name='dmaul1114']Yeah, but most of these people who lack the capacity for abstract thought don't bother spending time reading and posting on a political forum.

If you're going to participate here you should be able to think about and discuss issues more than these sheeple that just vote because of the impression someone gave them.

If not, you add nothing and shouldn't waste your time or our time.[/QUOTE]

Like I said, if you would read my entire post. You and I have discussed those exact things TO DEATH. If you're saying that only the same exact arguments, which us regulars already know to a T now are still worth repeating, then put me on ignore, because I find more interest in discussing new angles than the exact same policy disagreements over and over and over and over.

I know why you love Obama's policies. You know why I don't. Does it really need to be repeated yet again?

Edit: I never once said that "Feelings" were what I was going on to decide who to vote for or who to argue for. You assumed that. I simply said it's an angle of discussion we haven't really covered before that's somewhat interesting.

Don't tell me that you've never met a person that said all the right things but you just "felt" and knew, somehow, in the back of your head, that they were full of shit. Lots and lots of people have essentially said as much for McCain, and I don't see you rushing to his defense. So why get all sore now?
 
Maybe we don't need to discuss them any more.

But we also don't need pointless posts of you calling Obama's followers sheeps, or calling us fascists etc.

If you're tried of having debates over the issues. Then just don't post. There are plenty of threads here that I have strong opinions on, but just stay away from as I don't want to have the same tired arguments with the same tired people.

The main problem I have with you here though is I don't believe you've ever taking the time to read through all of Obama's policy stuff on his website as you're always posting that his stuff is to vague and other stuff that shows you don't really know the policies.

You just know the gist of them from speeches and shit you read on here and rail against them. I don't think reading them would change your mind, but we could probably do more than go in the same broad circles if you actually new the specifics of the policies.

But I don't think you have any desire to have that level of discourse. You'd rather just talk in generalities and partisan rhetoric.

But to be fair, that's not an invitation as I don't have the time or interest to get into specifics as I just post on short breaks at work. But I also don't troll the forums with insults and partisan rhetoric.

If I don't have a thought out opinion on a topic, I don't post. You'd do well to do the same.

[quote name='thrustbucket']
Don't tell me that you've never met a person that said all the right things but you just "felt" and knew, somehow, in the back of your head, that they were full of shit. Lots and lots of people have essentially said as much for McCain, and I don't see you rushing to his defense. So why get all sore now?[/QUOTE]

Maybe so. But I'm not going to call their followers sheep. I'd post things I disagree with in the person's stance. If the person gave me a feeling of being full of shit then I'd take the time to do some research and see if they really are full of shit.

I'm a scholar, that's what I do. Not jump to conclusions from first impressions and launch into internet smeer campaigns.
 
I never called anyone a sheep. You put those words in my mouth.

Many Obama supporters ARE sheep. I am sure you would agree. The majority of voters for both candidates are sheep. They will vote for him simply because he gets them excited in his speeches and isn't Bush. That's enough for many people right there. That's all they need.

But I never called people posting here sheep. I would never consider you or mykevermin sheep. I know you study all his polices and agree with most of them. That's fantastic for you guys. You are not sheep. There are a lot of people who are not sheep and study the issues.

Believing that most people decide on a candidate based on "gut" instinct, I thought it would simply be amusing to have everyone post what each candidate's "gut" instinct was, regardless of issues. I wasn't arguing it was relevant or should be reason enough to vote.

I clearly have more time to you to post nonsense like this, I just lost my job a week ago. I'll have lots of job to do lots of posting, surfing, and looking at game trailers. I understand you are busy and you and those as busy as you should only respond to posts you feel strongly about.

And I have read most of his plan for America. It's..... Whatever. Lots of social programs and lots of pumping himself up, lots of "Vote for me and you'll get X!" like any politicians selling himself. I don't find a lot of value in those things any more than a car salesman's pitch as they omit anything that could be easily argued against or taken apart by the other side. McCain's plans are the same way. It's very hard to get a clear picture of what either of these douches will do. I wager we'll get the most information from the debates.
 
[quote name='dmaul1114']fuck that. We're not hypnotized, we have listened to his speeches and read his policy outlines and agree with them. They feel right to us.[/quote]

I'm going to have to call you out on outright BULLSHIT right there. You could care less what he actually stands for. You made up your mind before there ever was a candidate.

I'm just f'n sick and tired of the rhetoric that you've all brainwashed yourselves into believing that the democratic party is somehow magically infallible. What...The...fuck?!?!? So in that sense, you already are hypnotized. You've done like all the other leftist nazis and reduced our (very broken) two party system into a local sports team, blindly cheering for one side without any regard to the fact that BOTH SIDES SUCK EQUALLY. Democrats aren't a "team" to cheer for nor are Repiblicans. But this incessant need of people to bash one side or the other with nothing but twisted half-truths is sickening. Obama Bin Laden is not the second coming of Christ! He is not a messiah! FFS...
 
The point is, none of those sheep are posting on this forum.

Thus your generalizations and rhetoric are a waste of time. And I'm talking your posting in general, not just this one comment in this thread. But this thread is relevant too. Camoor said Obama felt right, but from his posting's camoor is pretty knowledgeable on the issues. He's not a sheep going for him just because it feels right. The feeling right is just the added bonus for most of us. We like his policies and he feels like he's right for the job. The feeling may matter more for camoor who's not as inline with his policies, but he is aware of where he agrees and disagrees with Obama.

Anyway, the point is that this forum is full of people who pay attention to the issues and can discuss them in depth. You should post accordingly. Not like you're talking to a bunch of other knuckleheads in a bar that know little and just spout the party line rhetoric.


Orbiting234, I'm not even going to dignify that nonsense with a response.
 
[quote name='Orbiting234']I'm going to have to call you out on outright BULLSHIT right there. You could care less what he actually stands for. You made up your mind before there ever was a candidate.

I'm just f'n sick and tired of the rhetoric that you've all brainwashed yourselves into believing that the democratic party is somehow magically infallible. What...The...fuck?!?!? So in that sense, you already are hypnotized. You've done like all the other leftist nazis and reduced our (very broken) two party system into a local sports team, blindly cheering for one side without any regard to the fact that BOTH SIDES SUCK EQUALLY. Democrats aren't a "team" to cheer for nor are Repiblicans. But this incessant need of people to bash one side or the other with nothing but twisted half-truths is sickening. Obama Bin Laden is not the second coming of Christ! He is not a messiah! FFS...[/QUOTE]

I don't think people like dmaul believe the Democratic party is infallible. I don't even think they believe the Democratic party is any less corrupt than Republicans. It's just a simple matter of their view of the lesser of two evils, as it is for most people.

Dmaul doesn't not typically bash the Republicans and praises the Democrats, like others here. From what I've gathered, he is simply more likely to vote Democrat because he's big on social programs and "helping the downtrodden". And there is nothing wrong with that.

I agree with you that the Democuns suck equally. I'm beyond the point of voting for the lesser of two evils, because I've realized doing so still ends up getting us evil. But scathing posts like that are not necessary.

Dmaul, I started reading the stuff on the link you posted on Obama's issues, just to oblige you. I was going to present a bullet pointed list of each issue he mentions that I disagree with. But It suddenly hit me that we've been over it before. And I have a pretty good idea how it would go. For your amusement (Please don't take anything personal, it's in jest):

(After listing all the issues I don't like and why)
THRUST: So in summary, it sounds to me like he isn't going to reduce any part of government enough, and may even grow it. It sounds like he's big on social programs, and may even double capital gains tax, which really pisses me off because I may have to ditch my house before my 2 years is up. I also don't like how he's so pro -what I like to call - "greed-tax".

DMAUL: Well I am not a rich guy, but I am ok paying more taxes if it helps people in need out. People need help, how else are they going to get it?

THRUST: I don't believe the government knows how to spend money wisely enough to take even more of our sacred earnings and blow it in ways that would bankrupt any private company. They are too corrupt to be taxing more and spending more.

DMAUL: That may or may not be true but it's the best we've got. What are we going to do, trust social programs to private greedy corporations? No way. The government is the only entity capable of social programs, so I don't mind supporting it and trying to stop the corruption in the meantime.

THRUST: Hmm. Well I just disagree. I see that as feeding the problem. That's like giving the prodigal son more money, even though you know he will gamble most of it, but your hoping he spends at least some of it wisely.

DMAUL: Hmm. Yeah We are just going to have to agree to disagree. Obama is a fresh face, he seems to really care about people. He seems less corruptible than other politicians of the past, and I'm willing to give him a shot.

THRUST: Yeah, guess we have to agree to disagree. The other thing, though, is he seems to change his mind about what to do with Iraq almost bi-weekly.

DMAUL: I don't think so. He's made it pretty clear he wants to pull out asap as it makes sense, and I agree with that.

THRUST: But that's really a "have my cake and eat it too" statement. He is pandering to the "bring them home tomorrow" people but also cleverly leaving the door open to go back on that in doing something more logical militarily. That's the kind of stuff that drives me nuts about this guy, he words things in a way that appeals to every position.

DMAUL: I disagree. He wasn't for the war to begin with, and he'll bring the troops home as quickly as possible without catastrophe. Besides, it's much better than sticking with the party that got us there and has something to prove by staying.

THRUST: Hm. Ok. Well, I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree on that.

DMAUL: Yep.

THRUST: I guess I'll go play some Castle Crashers then, if you wanna join.

DMAUL: Ok.
 
Heh, the mention of Obama going to Iraq reminds me of a letter that I read from a family friend. He was pissed off at the fact that the only time he spoke to any of the soldiers was when it was for a photo op. Otherwise he ignored them all. I'm not trying to present this as fact, I'm just saying that this is a letter I had read that was forwarded to me from a family friend. Before someone tries to say "Oh, it was just a generic one" it wasn't, the guy was in their family.

I like how all this 'sheep' discussion was brought up. It's no secret that most Democrats will vote for Obama simply because he's a Democrat and Republicans will vote for McCain simply because he's a Republican. It's also obvious that charm can play a big role into hooking someone in and McCain definitely lacks this. Though unfortunately I don't agree with a lot of what he says nor do I support all his policies and always find myself asking "and... just where is all the money for this going to come from?"
 
[quote name='thrustbucket']Point taken.

But I have not seen any detailed plans that Obama has laid out that are any different than what's been coming out of the Democrats for 10 years now. If you feel I'm wrong, please link me.[/QUOTE]

Off the top of my head, his plan for compulsory rehabilitation coupled with shortening prison sentences means more people going back to the streets having being *transitioned* from prison life to free life, instead of being let go the very day they "max out" with no rehabilitation whatsoever. That plan flies in the face of not just Democrats, but three decades of nonsensical "get tough on crime/lock 'em up and throw away the key" policies that have had politicians trying to wave their respective criminological dicks around, measuring for size. All the while, growing corrections several times over into an extremely large, and also counterproductive, money pit for taxpayers.

There's also the insurance-friendly aspect of Obama's health care proposal. It was a major (well, the major) issue separating Obama and Clinton. While I favored Clinton's plan (which only mirrors what Democrats have offered because it was very similar to the plan she proposed a decade and a half ago - so it's still "hers" for better or worse), I also recognized that a full overhaul that fucks over insurance would be the plan to meet the greatest resistance. I knew that Clinton's plan would die; "Harry and Louise" would happen all over again. Obama's plan is considerably more moderate and doesn't offend insurance companies to the degree that Clinton does. It's, in that sense, more "market friendly" than it is your sorts of silly "SOCIALISM!!!" cries.

But I don't know why I bothered responding. I'd like to ask you what your knowledge of the Democrat platform has been for the past 10 years, such that you are an authority to tell me who is and is not aping it. Otherwise, you can just post-hoc the nuances between the two into irrelevance and tell me that it's all the same "tax and spend" nonsense.

At which point we're back to square one in terms of TV talking points, circumventing ideas, and headbutting into the political game of "gotcha!" that we so often foolishly do. Leave that for Ruined to inspire, ok? You're a savvier cat than that.
 
The current list of jokesters: dtcarson, elprincipe, KingBroly, lwelyk, Magehart, SpiderLocMTGO

Very funny, guys. Hilarious. Now restore my faith in humanity by owning up to it.
 
dtcarson's not a joke. He has great taste in music, but is a blithering idiot aside from that.

EDIT: Let me clarify: he's a giant blithering idiot. Other people argue their point, but this cat, IIRC, makes Ruined look like William F. Buckley Jr. in terms of eloquence and understanding. You can't even debate with the guy. You're hitting your head against a brick wall of talking points and empirical denial.
 
[quote name='distgfx'].....and always find myself asking "and... just where is all the money for this going to come from?"[/QUOTE]

He's laid it out pretty well I think, though people are free to disagree with his plans.

From his acceptance speech:

Now, many of these plans will cost money, which is why I've laid out how I'll pay for every dime -- by closing corporate loopholes and tax havens that don't help America grow. But I will also go through the federal budget, line by line, eliminating programs that no longer work and making the ones we do need work better and cost less -- because we cannot meet 21st century challenges with a 20th century bureaucracy.
Click to expand...

On top of that there's rolling back the Bush tax cuts for the wealthiest (and I'd expect increases beyond the Clinton yearl levels), windfall profits taxes on big oil, money saved by getting out of Iraq as soon as reasonable and relying more on diplomacy than missles that cost $1million a pop in the future etc. etc.
 
[quote name='thrustbucket']I was merely making an observation about the overall "Feeling" of Obama's approach on a personal level. Which, like it or not, is what sways more people in elections than all the detailed plans in the universe, so it's more than relevant to talk about. [/quote]

Maybe. I had a few beers when I wrote that, but I do like Obama better then ol' McNasty.

I'm just kinda on a "vote them out" kick. If the Republicans are going to win I'll vote Dem (Hail Mary pass!). If the Dems are going to win I'll vote for the candidate closest to my personal values - probably someone from the Green party or Libertarian party (whoever really floats my boat at the time) . Libertarians need to get it together though - too many pro-lifers going around waving the Libertarian flag. Leave it for the theocrats guys...
 
Here's a question: supposedly the government taxes about 23% of GDP, that's been nearly static for many many years (and Obama has promised during his term it will not exceed 23.5% under any circumstances) -- so why are middle-class working families like my dad paying 30%, when the distribution of total income is heavily skewed for the top percentiles (e.g. top 10% of earners making 95% of all American earnings).

The only rational explanation is that the very wealthy are paying less than 23.5% through broken tax code.
 
[quote name='dmaul1114']On top of that there's rolling back the Bush tax cuts for the wealthiest (and I'd expect increases beyond the Clinton yearl levels), windfall profits taxes on big oil, money saved by getting out of Iraq as soon as reasonable and relying more on diplomacy than missles that cost $1million a pop in the future etc. etc.[/quote]

What's the majority opinion here of what's considered wealth and what's not? From what I've seen and heard, the republicans consider people on welfare to be middle class citizens. I grew up in a far-right family so I've heard a lot of complaints from them and other republican family friends. You should of seen their faces when I told them I was pro-choice and believed in rights for gays.

While all these ideas sound good in theory, whether or not they're all done is a different story entirely. If he's elected, I'll have to see it to believe it.
 
"middle-class" is by itself a useless phenomenon. Between people making 20-80K per year (the middle 60% of income earners, give or take), there's a whole lot of variation. People making 80k =/= people making 20K.

Both are considered "middle-class," though.

Wealth is not income, so you're asking two different questions.
 
[quote name='mykevermin']Wealth is not income, so you're asking two different questions.[/quote]

No? It always seems to be what they're referring to when talking about wealth.
 
[quote name='distgfx']What's the majority opinion here of what's considered wealth and what's not? From what I've seen and heard, the republicans consider people on welfare to be middle class citizens. I grew up in a far-right family so I've heard a lot of complaints from them and other republican family friends. You should of seen their faces when I told them I was pro-choice and believed in rights for gays.

While all these ideas sound good in theory, whether or not they're all done is a different story entirely. If he's elected, I'll have to see it to believe it.[/QUOTE]

Well, per Myke's thread, it looks like Obama's tax plan would be more beneficial to everyone marking under $112,000 a year compared to McCain's.

So his plan is better for the lower class, middle class and the beginning portion of the upper class than McCain's, using lower as under $20k, middle as 20k-75 or 80k and upper as beyond that.

The specific cutpoints are pretty arbitrary as Myke noted above, but you get the gist.
 
[quote name='distgfx']No? It always seems to be what they're referring to when talking about wealth.[/QUOTE]

All income is wealth, but not all wealth is income. The sum total of your seizable assets, including debts, make up your wealth.
 
[quote name='mykevermin']All income is wealth, but not all wealth is income. The sum total of your seizable assets, including debts, make up your wealth.[/quote]

That... that's a damned good explanation. I never took that into account.
 
[quote name='Orbiting234']I'm just f'n sick and tired of the rhetoric that you've all brainwashed yourselves into believing that the democratic party is somehow magically infallible.[/QUOTE]

I would advise everyone not to respond to this bundle of logical fallacies.

No one made the above argument, not here not anywhere.

While the Democrats are not perfect they have been much better than the Republicans on well every single issue. The fact that you have to resort to "Obama Bin Laden" is proof enough of how factless and scared you are.
 
[quote name='Msut77']I would advise everyone not to respond to this bundle of logical fallacies.
[/QUOTE]

Yet you respond to him yourself!
 
[quote name='mykevermin']Off the top of my head, his plan for compulsory rehabilitation coupled with shortening prison sentences means more people going back to the streets having being *transitioned* from prison life to free life, instead of being let go the very day they "max out" with no rehabilitation whatsoever. That plan flies in the face of not just Democrats, but three decades of nonsensical "get tough on crime/lock 'em up and throw away the key" policies that have had politicians trying to wave their respective criminological dicks around, measuring for size. All the while, growing corrections several times over into an extremely large, and also counterproductive, money pit for taxpayers.[/quote]
That is interesting. So as a criminologist yourself, do you like this? By what criteria will they get people in prisons out on streets and guarantee they won't be dangerous?

There's also the insurance-friendly aspect of Obama's health care proposal. It was a major (well, the major) issue separating Obama and Clinton. While I favored Clinton's plan (which only mirrors what Democrats have offered because it was very similar to the plan she proposed a decade and a half ago - so it's still "hers" for better or worse), I also recognized that a full overhaul that fucks over insurance would be the plan to meet the greatest resistance. I knew that Clinton's plan would die; "Harry and Louise" would happen all over again. Obama's plan is considerably more moderate and doesn't offend insurance companies to the degree that Clinton does. It's, in that sense, more "market friendly" than it is your sorts of silly "SOCIALISM!!!" cries.
Click to expand...
I don't loath Obama's health plan like the Clinton's, I admit that. I am curious to see how it gets implemented. I think we've all known for a long time that a "hybrid" health plan was needed, it sounds like that's what this is.

I really appreciate the response. You didn't waste your breath, this is the exact type of stuff I was looking for, and I wasn't being fecicous.

The first one I had not heard much about. I am still cautious about the health stuff, but I am confident that we will see it come to pass, so we'll see how it shakes out. I think a large part of a new health program's success in this country is going to depend on the Economy, which is why that's a more important issue. Where the economy is and how it's doing when Obama gets it implemented will play a major role in it's success, I assume.

[quote name='dmaul1114']Yet you respond to him yourself![/QUOTE]
Msutt has always had a secret boner for me. He's like a cute little badger. Usually only crawls out of his hole to antagonize and make personal attacks with a very basic "Republican bad Democrat good" core logic, but we love him anyway.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
[quote name='dmaul1114']Yet you respond to him yourself![/QUOTE]

I can't help myself, I am constantly amazed at the number of jackoffs who spew "you guys are just ignorant democrap sheeple who.... GAH Secrit Mooslim!!!111".

It as if they are trying to sound sane and rational yet they can't quite make it.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
[quote name='thrustbucket']That is interesting. So as a criminologist yourself, do you like this? By what criteria will they get people in prisons out on streets and guarantee they won't be dangerous[/QUOTE]

Per your first question, it depends on what the programs consist of.

Per your second, the ones being released now are already "dangerous," given high rates of recidivism. Moreover, the past 30 years have shown that locking them up for longer periods of time does nothing to reduce their "dangerousness" to society.

But to be honest, I don't know what the criteria are. Some folks argue that you should focus on low-risk offenders, because you're wasting your money on high-risk (giving them rehab, at any rate); some argue the opposite, saying low-risk are a waste of money because they're low-risk.

I guess it depends on what Obama thinks. His policy isn't that strictly elaborated on from what little I've read.
 
[quote name='mykevermin']

I guess it depends on what Obama thinks. His policy isn't that strictly elaborated on from what little I've read.[/QUOTE]

Nice of you to admit that. :)

Seriously though, I don't know much about this stuff, please post here when you know more.

I'm ok with starting to release some of the non-violent prisoners I guess, with some good probationary policy implemented along with it.
 
Q. If you could impregnate one of the four, which one?

A. It'd be Biden. wait.... I might be getting these threads confused. :whistle2:k
 
[quote name='thrustbucket']
I'm ok with starting to release some of the non-violent prisoners I guess, with some good probationary policy implemented along with it.[/QUOTE]

I'd hope the reforms would be along the lines of:

1. More use of probation for non-violent offenses and minor to moderate violent offenses.

2. More rehab and shorter prison terms/return of more liberal parole polices in states that abolished parole for violent offenders.

3. More funding for rehabilitation programs in prisons and for probationers and parolees. And use rehab programs shown to be effective/promising in current research (there's a book by MacKenzie called What Works in Corrections that's a good review on this stuff if you're interested, for something shorter she has some articles out that review it, as do people like Andrews, Bonta, Gendreau etc.--to lazy to pull up specific citations right now).
 
[quote name='thrustbucket']I'm ok with starting to release some of the non-violent prisoners I guess, with some good probationary policy implemented along with it.[/QUOTE]

p'shaw. drug offenders are who you want to be scared of, since they stay knee-deep in drugs in prison, and come out with an unhealthy addiction. They overlap more with property offenders than violent, and thus drug/property offenders are more likely to recidivate.

OTOH, violent offenders are the least likely to recidivate. Especially murderers. They've killed the people who mattered to kill, so it's not like you're a threat to them. Jilted lover? Best person to release; they no longer have anyone to be jilted about.

EDIT: Listen to dmaul also; he mentioned the Canadian Crew.
 
[quote name='mykevermin']p'shaw. drug offenders are who you want to be scared of, since they stay knee-deep in drugs in prison, and come out with an unhealthy addiction. They overlap more with property offenders than violent, and thus drug/property offenders are more likely to recidivate.

OTOH, violent offenders are the least likely to recidivate. Especially murderers. They've killed the people who mattered to kill, so it's not like you're a threat to them. Jilted lover? Best person to release; they no longer have anyone to be jilted about.
[/QUOTE]

Really? That is interesting. I didn't know those things, statistics-wise.

Something to think about....
 
[quote name='Koggit']The current list of jokesters: dtcarson, elprincipe, KingBroly, lwelyk, Magehart, SpiderLocMTGO

Very funny, guys. Hilarious. Now restore my faith in humanity by owning up to it.[/QUOTE]

Why do you think it's a joke?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
bread's done
Back
Top