McCain/Palin v. Obama/Biden

[Mippo]

Originally Posted by tad10

Mwahaahaha. Ah the soft racism of the left. If only black folk really understand what the fuck the democratic party was doing to them...

Ah well. Maybe Black Liberation Theology will get a clue someday...

Did Legalizing Abortion Cut Crime? The Levitt Freakonomics theory critically analyzed. Additional analysis and data by Steve Sailer.

They admitted they made an error but even after it was fixed, the theory still holds true.

[MrSpitz]

Originally Posted by emoo

I have caught NY times articles very cleverly and subtly mixing opinion with fact, same with WSJ. The sneakiness is a big turn-off to me.
I would almost rather read my news from an obviously biased source, as it would be less work to separate the opinion from the fact.

Yep, that's why you have to read it. Then you have to check out foxnews.com and maybe something like the economist all in one feel swoop to balance the opinions. It's so funny Foxnews gets shit on for blatantly being so unbalanced, at least you know right up front.

If any of you have found a written news source that doesn't interject what the editors want, well please let me know. But thank god there are so many different ones, it really works out that you can get a better picture sometimes reading articles about the same shit from the different sources.

[tad10]

Originally Posted by Mippo

They admitted they made an error but even after it was fixed, the theory still holds true.

It holds true if your a flat out racist and think that blacks and other minorities can't ever make it out of the ghetto.

Or if you didn't read the link.

As I tried to explain to Dr. Levitt when we debated in Slate in 1999, what happened, simplifying greatly, was that the vast youth crack crime wave first emerged in the later 1980s in the socially liberal states where legal abortion also had taken off first about 17 years earlier, most notably New York and California, which legalized abortion in 1970, three years before Roe v. Wade.

In other words, contrary to Levitt's theory, there was at the state level, a positive correlation (when appropriately weighted by population of state), between the legal abortion rate in the early 1970s and the teen homicide offending rate in the late 1980s and early 1990s among those youths born after legalization. Unfortunately, Dr. Levitt initially only looked at crime rates for the years 1985 and 1997 (and only looked at the uselessly crude age groups of over and under 25), so he completely missed how his theory had catastrophically failed its most obvious historical test.

[Khorum]

Originally Posted by Mippo

I don't care about Iraq. I don't live in Iraq. Fuck Iraq. I want to know who is going to help us and why my tax dollars are paying for this bullshit while fucking our country over with heavy amounts of debt?

Sure, you're entitled to your opinion about Iraq.

But if you're somehow convinced that Obama's economic policies will do ANYTHING other than obstruct and recess our capital markets, please do explain. If you think Obama's tax plan will do anything other than hamper the very forces that grow our retirement funds, that maintain our industries, that support our entrepreneurs, do tell. If you have know of a plan on on how Obama will compel the very people who have vexed every attempt at excessive taxation then do share it with us please.

And then, hopefully you can explain to us how Obama's keynesian economics hopes to surpass the vibrant supply-side economies of the 1980's or Clinton's neoliberal imitation of Reaganomics in the 1990's. Then maybe you can begin to explain how Bush's tax cuts yielded the two highest record tax revenues in american history. Then maybe you can explain why we should choose Obama's tax plan which seeks to run investors OUT of the American economy versus McCain's plan which seeks to invite foreign investors into the communities, regions and industries that sorely need investment to stimulate our economy?

MAYBE then you can explain why Obama reverts to his trademark misdirection into victimization and class warfare when forced to answer about why his plan to harm our capital markets has no basis on historical reality whatsoever:

Maybe you can explain why Obama decides to talk about "this victim" and "that oppressor" when asked a simple question about the truth about capital taxation that even BILL CLINTON understood.

Furthermore, while you're trying to explain that, maybe you can work on how we're expected to believe that Obama, who has REFUSED to show any moral and political courage EVER in his career, should be trusted to enact, endorse or even believe in any of those plans in the first place.

[Jedah]

Originally Posted by tad10

Please look up the definition of the word 'most.' You seem to think I wrote 'all.'

Why does it matter? It's an absolute minority, nowhere close to a potent political force: you might as well ask which party a majority of albinos vote for.

[Arbitrary]

Like we've got a candidate who is an economic whiz on either side.

[Mippo]

Originally Posted by tad10

It holds true if your a flat out racist and think that blacks and other minorities can't ever make it out of the ghetto.

Or if you didn't read the link.

I've read the book, what the critics said, Levitt admitting he made a mistake, and then the response to the critics with new data coming to the same conclusion which can be found here.

Back to the drawing board for our latest criticsand also the Wall Street Journal and (Oops!) the Economist. - Freakonomics - Opinion - New York Times Blog

I don't see why it is so inconceivable that an unwanted baby has a greater propensity to turn to crime.

[Mippo]

Originally Posted by Khorum

Sure, you're entitled to your opinion about Iraq.

But if you're somehow convinced that Obama's economic policies will do ANYTHING other than obstruct and recess our capital markets, please do explain. If you think Obama's tax plan will do anything other than hamper the very forces that grow our retirement funds, that maintain our industries, that support our entrepreneurs, do tell. If you have know of a plan on on how Obama will compel the very people who have vexed every attempt at excessive taxation then do share it with us please.

And then, hopefully you can explain to us how Obama's keynesian economics hopes to surpass the vibrant supply-side economies of the 1980's or Clinton's neoliberal imitation of Reaganomics in the 1990's. Then maybe you can begin to explain how Bush's tax cuts yielded the two highest record tax revenues in american history. Then maybe you can explain why we should choose Obama's tax plan which seeks to run investors OUT of the American economy versus McCain's plan which seeks to invite foreign investors into the communities, regions and industries that sorely need investment to stimulate our economy?

MAYBE then you can explain why Obama reverts to his trademark misdirection into victimization and class warfare when forced to answer about why his plan to harm our capital markets has no basis on historical reality whatsoever:

Maybe you can explain why Obama decides to talk about "this victim" and "that oppressor" when asked a simple question about the truth about capital taxation that even BILL CLINTON understood.

Furthermore, while you're trying to explain that, maybe you can work on how we're expected to believe that Obama, who has REFUSED to show any moral and political courage EVER in his career, should be trusted to enact, endorse or even believe in any of those plans in the first place.

No, but McCain wants to keep this country at war and I wouldn't be shocked for him to start a new war during his Presidency which we can't afford. They are hinting at Iran.

I believe Obama will implore diplomacy, improve our foreign relations, and keep this country out of war.

Nothing else matters when you consider the financial implications of a war. If McCain was President, we would've gone to war with Iraq and we would be in the same predicament we are in now with Bush. If Obama was President, we would not have gone to war and the country would be much better off.

Anyone with any common sense would implore diplomacy before going to war. McCain clearly lacks that common sense and let's not forget about Palin's "Iraq is god's will".

[tad10]

Originally Posted by Mippo

I don't see why it is so inconceivable that an unwanted baby has a greater propensity to turn to crime.

There is so much that is wrong with this statement I'm not sure where to begin.

[emoo]

Originally Posted by tad10

There is so much that is wrong with this statement I'm not sure where to begin.

Anywhere is good.

[Mippo]

Originally Posted by tad10

There is so much that is wrong with this statement I'm not sure where to begin.

Typical response from someone who doesn't have an answer.

[Khorum]

Originally Posted by Mippo

I believe Obama will implore diplomacy, improve our foreign relations, and keep this country out of war.

Yeah but WHY do you believe that? What FACTUAL basis do you have that Obama has ever-----EVER------stood up for the convictions he has stated.

I've laid out the record of Obama's performance as my senator, it's an open secret in Chicago that he was hand-picked by Rahm Emmanuel to make the 2004 keynote speech with absolutely ZERO vetting about his radical anti-american ties (Bill Ayers was ACTUALLY at the 2004 DNC convention).

Obama's record is laden with grand pronouncements and sweeping gestures backed by nothing but cynicism, dishonesty and outright incompetence.

I believe we needed to liberate Iraq. I happen to believe we need to engage Iran also. That's because I'm a Goldwater republican who clings to Barry Goldwater's doctrine of "Peace Through Strength" that has seen Condi Rice finally normalizing relations with Libya, realized China as our closest trading partner, brought the North Koreans into dismantling their nuclear program and accepting the first visit of the New York Philharmonic.

I KNOW that McCain will deliver on his word. I don't need __FAITH__ for this because McCain has repeatedly shown integrity and courage even at the cost of his political well-being. He did this with his Immigration plan, he did this when he realized the HMO Patients bill of rights act, and he did this when he violently rejected the gay marriage ban and excoriated his own party during an election year.

Where in Obama's history do you place your faith that he has EVER shown the conviction, the steel or even just the INCLINATION for __YOUR__ values? Was it when he spoke about fighting for the working people of Ohio against NAFTA even as he faxed the Canadians that he was only joking? Was it when he promised to stay within the public campaign financing system and then broke his own word?

[The Edge]

Originally Posted by Khorum

These links are REUTERS, Chicago Tribune, NBC News, Chicago Sun-Times and LA Times.... Except for FOX blurb about Ayers, ALL OF THEM are liberal sources. Chicago Tribune and Chicago Sun-Times have endorsed Obama at one point or another:


I'm not trying to insinuate Obama is corrupt, IT WAS A KNOWN AND ACCEPTED FACT in the government contracting and development community in Chicago. I was a project manager in that community for several years and everyone from constuction union bosses to real-estate developers knew about Tony Rezko and his high-caliber links in City, County and State government. It wasn't even a secret. Hell Rezko and the son of Nation of Islam founder Elijah Muhammad owned a bunch of popular fast food joints in the city.

Is it fearmongering? Well I suppose if you've never ENCOUNTERED that information before you could be afraid. But no man, that's just the truth. Can you dispute it? ANY OF IT?

I don't need to dispute it. The burden of proof falls on you. If it were as you said, he would not even be running right now.

You start off trying to say he's guilty by association. That's weak, and you know it. Am I a thief because my friend used to shop lift at Wal-Mart? When Obama found out about this guy being corrupt, he donated the money he received from him to charity.

Then you link something trying to say he won by suing his competition. Do you have any idea about any of this stuff? The candidates had obtained false signatures and he investigated and busted them on corruption. It's not the way he wanted to win, but what was he supposed to do, ignore it?

And yes, all you are doing is using fear as your driving force, and no, that doesn't make it true. It really is quite old now.

[Soriak]

Of course planned parenthood is serving more minorities than Caucasians. Their services are most needed in poor neighborhoods, which are disproportionally inhabited by minorities.

What's the argument here? Should poor women not have the same choice to get an abortion? Clearly this isn't about the money, as having one is much cheaper than welfare payments for the kid. For the woman, it's probably even the responsible choice. Evidently, she doesn't think she's in a position to raise a child.

[tad10]

Originally Posted by emoo

Anywhere is good.

Mmmmm. Okay.


1. Equates unexpected with unwanted and/or unloved. There is no way of knowing how the mother would feel about a child in a world sans legal abortion. Whether or not the child was concieved accidentally does not correlate to whether the child is raised as an 'unwanted' or 'unloved' child. More to the point, I'll suggest that in most cases an accidental pregnancy still results in a loved child.

2. Presumes that crime is the only rationale outlet for such children. Which has been shown to be wrong (see, e.g. in the article linked above the brief discussion of the (de)merits of crack dealing).

3. Ignores all the fun(?! -- who doesn't love the interrobang?) criminals who though 'wanted' are still fuckups. Where are Leopold and Loeb when you need them?

4. Is just flat out racist. Come on -- be honest.

5. Pretty much ignores the scientific method. Just because you 'feel' something doesn't mean it is true. I can honestly say that 'I feel God exists.' But I recognize that doesn't prove anything to the average atheist.

6. And in any case the article I linked debunked the theory that you 'feel' was correct.

Probably more but that's enough for now. Anyway I need a drink.