Archive

Disgusted With Obama Administration.

  • Footwedge
    BGFalcons82;931607 wrote:Careful what you wish for. I believe it will be here in my lifetime through the use of microchips innocently inserted under your skin...all in the name of security, safety and our personal protection.

    Orwell predicted it oh so many decades ago. He just got the exact year incorrect.
    100% agree with this. A slippery slope indeed. People with marked propensities for getting sick will be black balled from gaining useful employment. Wait and see.
  • Writerbuckeye
    I Wear Pants;931660 wrote:Who said they stopped them in progress? They were merely saying that towns with more police tend to have less murders and rapes.


    I'd love to see data on this because I doubt there's a direct correlation. Their might be a link between finding the culprits, but I find it hard to believe more police equals prevention of crime.
  • gut
    Writerbuckeye;931797 wrote:[/B]I'd love to see data on this because I doubt there's a direct correlation. Their might be a link between finding the culprits, but I find it hard to believe more police equals prevention of crime.
    I've seen the data a few times and there is a correlation. You're not thinking about it correctly. It's not that more police prevent crime, it's that it's a deterrent because the likelihood of being caught, in progress or otherwise, increases. Deter or prevent, the end result is the same.
  • I Wear Pants
    Writerbuckeye;931797 wrote:[/B]I'd love to see data on this because I doubt there's a direct correlation. Their might be a link between finding the culprits, but I find it hard to believe more police equals prevention of crime.
    http://www.vpostrel.com/articles-speeches/nyt/police.html

    That's one study.

    But I wasn't really trying to say that what I said was what I believed. I was simply trying to note that Biden's argument wasn't as ridiculous as it was being made out to be.
  • majorspark
    I Wear Pants;932052 wrote:http://www.vpostrel.com/articles-speeches/nyt/police.html

    That's one study.

    But I wasn't really trying to say that what I said was what I believed. I was simply trying to note that Biden's argument wasn't as ridiculous as it was being made out to be.
    That is for the locals to determine. Do you want the feds maintaining our local law enforcement. Do you really want federal politicians claiming with out their help your women will be raped and you families killed?
  • I Wear Pants
    majorspark;932064 wrote:That is for the locals to determine. Do you want the feds maintaining our local law enforcement. Do you really want federal politicians claiming with out their help your women will be raped and you families killed?
    I wasn't talking about the feds maintaining law enforcement. I was merely trying to undemonize what was said.

    I think that police forces and that sort of thing should absolutely be a local issue. But Biden did not "threaten rape and murder". Take issue with federal dollars paying for local police all you want but please at least represent the arguments the other guys are making without dressing them up in boogeyman costumes.
  • majorspark
    Pants, I find it funny that you defend federal involvement in local enforcement. Yet rail against the existence of homeland security. You rail against the fear tactics used to bring this federal department into existence. Then defend fear tactics being use by the feds to subsidize local law enforcement.
  • majorspark
    I Wear Pants;932066 wrote:I think that police forces and that sort of thing should absolutely be a local issue. But Biden did not "threaten rape and murder". Take issue with federal dollars paying for local police all you want but please at least represent the arguments the other guys are making without dressing them up in boogeyman costumes.
    He is using fear to get power.
  • I Wear Pants
    majorspark;932069 wrote:Pants, I find it funny that you defend federal involvement in local enforcement. Yet rail against the existence of homeland security. You rail against the fear tactics used to bring this federal department into existence. Then defend fear tactics being use by the feds to subsidize local law enforcement.
    Because I don't see Biden's (possibly inaccurate, I can't be bothered to look into it) claim that less police could lead to more murders and rapes in a discussion about the passage of a bill that would pay for police as fear mongering. You see it that way because you hate the man and can't think rationally about him or anything he says.

    That says I disagree with that method of funding our local police forces. I'm not defending the dudes argument, just saying that he didn't threaten rape and murder. At worst he made an inaccurate correlation.
  • I Wear Pants
    Also you seem to be getting a joy out of catching me in "hypocrisy" lately. It appears you don't understand that I play devil's advocate a lot of the time, especially on the internet. Seeing as the OC's politics board is very heavily slanted to the right that means I defend the arguments of the left pretty often. So I wouldn't get too caught up in that.
  • majorspark
    I Wear Pants;932074 wrote:Also you seem to be getting a joy out of catching me in "hypocrisy" lately. It appears you don't understand that I play devil's advocate a lot of the time, especially on the internet. Seeing as the OC's politics board is very heavily slanted to the right that means I defend the arguments of the left pretty often. So I wouldn't get too caught up in that.
    I'll keep that in mind. If you defend an argument be prepared to answer for it though. One can only go by the words you type. Not these deep thoughts of I am really trying to keep right wing nut bags from engaging in a circle jerk.
  • majorspark
    I Wear Pants;932074 wrote:Also you seem to be getting a joy out of catching me in "hypocrisy" lately.
    No joy. I actually feel bad. You are a good thoughtful poster. Its just been really easy lately.:rolleyes:
  • majorspark
    majorspark;932082 wrote:No joy. I actually feel bad. You are a good thoughtful poster. Its just been really easy lately.:rolleyes:
    I swore I would never use those damn smiley faces. But I did not want you to think I was a dick.
  • I Wear Pants
    majorspark;932080 wrote:I'll keep that in mind. If you defend an argument be prepared to answer for it though. One can only go by the words you type. Not these deep thoughts of I am really trying to keep right wing nut bags from engaging in a circle jerk.
    Lol, I restrained myself from calling it a circle jerk. And I didn't say nut bags because you guys aren't (well you can be but aren't always) nut bags. But for the most part many of you are quite conservative in your political views and this forum would seem sort of pointless if it was just thread after thread of "look at this thing I don't like about Obama".

    And I did answer for the defense that we're talking about now. All I was defending was that Biden did not threaten rape and murder. That's it. I didn't like the hyperbole used to make him look bad there. You don't need to distort that man's words to make him look bad, he does it all on his own.
  • I Wear Pants
    majorspark;932083 wrote:I swore I would never use those damn smiley faces. But I did not want you to think I was a dick.
    Too late. :)

    I kid.

    Alright time for this kid to go to sleep. Calc exam, Ethics discussion, whole bunch of other stuff tomorrow.
  • jhay78
    I Wear Pants;932073 wrote:You see it that way because you hate the man and can't think rationally about him or anything he says.
    I can think rationally about Joe Biden. Dude's dumber than a box of rocks.
  • Writerbuckeye
    jhay78;932374 wrote:I can think rationally about Joe Biden. Dude's dumber than a box of rocks.
    He really is an embarrassment to his office. Fortunately for him, the media loves his boss so they cover every time he shoots himself in the foot; or, if they are somewhat forced to report, just shrug it off with a laugh like it's no big deal.
  • BGFalcons82
    Shocking...utterly farking shocking ---> http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-10-13/tanning-tax-income-pales-in-comparison-to-estimates-audit-finds.html

    The elitists enacted a racist tax on white people and it's NOT generating the revenue they thought it would. Huh...imagine that...tax policy actually CHANGES behavior. Must be about the millionth time that's ever happened. Better find another revenue enhancer that drills another industry into the shitter, Washington.

    And Ty wants MORE of this type of leadership. Eventually, they'll dream up a tax that hits him where it hurts. We can't afford 4 more years, let alone 400 more days of President Zero.
  • BoatShoes
    BGFalcons82;932822 wrote:The elitists enacted a racist tax on white people
    This is a laughable assertion. The tax is a pigovian tax on the negative externality of skin cancer. The social cost of that disease is not adequately priced into the private cost of fake baking. People who go tanning pass the true costs of the activity onto you. The tax is a way to make sure they pay the true cost of their private choices.

    Racist tax? Jeez...
  • BGFalcons82
    BoatShoes;932886 wrote:This is a laughable assertion. The tax is a pigovian tax on the negative externality of skin cancer. The social cost of that disease is not adequately priced into the private cost of fake baking. People who go tanning pass the true costs of the activity onto you. The tax is a way to make sure they pay the true cost of their private choices.

    Racist tax? Jeez...
    Oh...so the taxes collected on the tanning salons go directly to the research, causation and possible cure for skin cancer? Wow. I learn so much new neat stuff on here. Heck, I might go get me some so that I can help participate. Thanks for sharing. I suppose next you're going to tell me that the FICA tax collected only goes to paying retirees and medicare recepients.

    It is quite clear there is a disproportionate amount of caucasians as a percentage of the total population that attends tanning salons. Did they enact it as a racist tax? Nope. Are those words used in ObamaKare? Nope. Think of it this way: If you taxed tampons, you wouldn't call it a tax on women, but it most certainly would be a gender tax. They could never call it that, though...the NOW gang and all of that.

    The IRS also calls confiscating an ex-taxpayers assets an "Estate Tax", when in reality it is a Death Tax as the only way to collect it is to have the taxpayer die. See how the government works, here? They can't use the truth. The fact you deny a near unanimous payer of the "tanning tax" as being caucasian is weird. Do you know the function of a tanning salon?
  • I Wear Pants
    I take it you don't agree with taxes on tobacco products either then.
  • jhay78
    BoatShoes;932886 wrote:This is a laughable assertion. The tax is a pigovian tax on the negative externality of skin cancer. The social cost of that disease is not adequately priced into the private cost of fake baking. People who go tanning pass the true costs of the activity onto you. The tax is a way to make sure they pay the true cost of their private choices.

    Racist tax? Jeez...
    The next African-American I see heading to the tanning salon will be the first.

    How long before we "pay the true cost of our private choice" to lay out in the sun, play sports outdoors in the sun, put a new roof on a house out in the sun, or do any number of outdoor activities in the sun?

    While we're at it, how long before the same holds true with regards to our private choice to eat unhealthy food, or not exercise, etc., etc.?

    If the government didn't promise to correct all social ills by inserting itself into an ever-increasing welfare state, then social costs would rightly be paid for and replaced by individual responsibilities.
  • BGFalcons82
    I Wear Pants;932932 wrote:I take it you don't agree with taxes on tobacco products either then.
    arggghh, Pants. :mad:

    Regarding the tobacco tax, go look up how much additional revenue the state of New York generated by raising the taxes on cigarettes. Once again, changing the tax rates affects behavior.

    My point in regards to my sarcasm aimed at Boat is that ObamaKare was sold with a tax on tanning salons because "everyone" that uses them gets skin cancer and since skin cancer is a drain on healthcare costs, it is only right and proper to tax the users of healthcare if they engage in such risky behaviours. In other words, our rectums were greased with language claiming that the tax is necessary to be applied to people whom knowingly expose themselves to melanomas. This is utter bullshit. They have no intentions of using tanning salon money for skin cancer ONLY. Same as the FICA tax....the bastards have been stealing those trillions for decades and giving the "trust fund" an IOU in its stead.

    jhay makes great points above about other risky behaviours like fatty foods, french fries, sugary beverages and ice cream facing future taxes because of their unhealthy nature. It's coming, we just don't know the hour or the day.
  • I Wear Pants
    I knew that one would cause problems :)

    Though the taxes on cigarettes are probably meant to discourage their use much more than raise revenue.
  • BGFalcons82
    I Wear Pants;932960 wrote:Though the taxes on cigarettes are probably meant to discourage their use much more than raise revenue.
    Nope. If their intent was to discourage use, then raise taxes to $10/pack. Or make them illegal. Not gonna happen now is it?

    Cig taxes have been a backbone of liberal theology because people have a natural inclination to agree that smoking is rotten and people whom engage in smoking should be paying for their vice. Shame on them and hand over the cash damnit. It's an easy sell for politicians to go after vice-aholics to tax them more. Ditto for alcohol. Someday, mary-jane will enter the fray when they figure out how to regulate it and test for it on the highways. It's only a matter of time.