Page 7 of 9 FirstFirst ... 3456789 LastLast
Results 91 to 105 of 128

Thread: You fell for this huckster!

  1. #91 | Top
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    Ventura CA
    Posts
    48,164
    Thanks
    55,332
    Thanked 8,485 Times in 7,397 Posts
    Groans
    3,768
    Groaned 2,814 Times in 2,556 Posts
    Blog Entries
    1

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Oneuli View Post
    Check the stats. My statements are verifiably correct on every single item. Just to get you started, here:

    https://www.nber.org/cycles.html

    As can see, the economy started growing again about five months into Obama's presidency, and went on growing for the rest of his time in office. Read up on things and you'll be able to confirm all the things I said were correct.
    If Obama had done NOTHING, the economy would have grown you dunce. What Obama did was cause stagnation of the recovery which lasted until Trump took office. Of course, in loony liberal land, malaise is good, 3.5% GDP bad.

    On another note, Obama also accomplished that which only Clinton had done prior to his Presidency, lose the House and the Senate by a massive margin. I think his was worse than BillyBob's.

    I bet you cheered that too eh snowflake?
    “A wise and frugal government… shall restrain men from injuring one another, shall leave them otherwise free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement, and shall not take from the mouth of labor the bread it has earned. This is the sum of good government.” — Thomas Jefferson, First Inaugural Address, March 4, 1801

    The real fantasy world is the one that allows Democrats to run from a past that never was to a future no one wants

  2. #92 | Top
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    Ventura CA
    Posts
    48,164
    Thanks
    55,332
    Thanked 8,485 Times in 7,397 Posts
    Groans
    3,768
    Groaned 2,814 Times in 2,556 Posts
    Blog Entries
    1

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Oneuli View Post
    Sentencing reform.

    https://www.miamiherald.com/news/pol...125500294.html

    Also, liberal policies are associated with falling crime rates, which also helps.
    So crime wasn't dealt with; he just lowered the bar for jailing criminals and then commuted their sentences so that they could continue preying on law abiding citizens. Fucking brilliant plan!!! Dunce.

    You really are too stupid for words.

    “A wise and frugal government… shall restrain men from injuring one another, shall leave them otherwise free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement, and shall not take from the mouth of labor the bread it has earned. This is the sum of good government.” — Thomas Jefferson, First Inaugural Address, March 4, 1801

    The real fantasy world is the one that allows Democrats to run from a past that never was to a future no one wants

  3. #93 | Top
    Join Date
    Aug 2018
    Location
    NYC
    Posts
    2,943
    Thanks
    401
    Thanked 1,627 Times in 1,004 Posts
    Groans
    0
    Groaned 109 Times in 108 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by cawacko View Post
    You can read it from any number of black authors and BAC has spoken about it on this board. The ‘94 crime bill put more black people behind bars than any other legislation
    I'm not deny that talking point is out there. I'm just pointing out it doesn't line up with the data. You can see it in this graph:



    As you can see, there was very rapid increase in incarceration rates from about 1980 through about 1995, followed by slower increases through about 2008, followed by falling rates. The result was that the Clinton era, taken as a whole, had a slower increase in rates than the Reagan and Bush eras before him. Another view of a similar thing, here:

    https://sentencingproject.org/wp-con...orrections.pdf

    Again, the rise is practically vertical until around 1995, then there's a shallower rise through 2008, then a decline.

  4. #94 | Top
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Posts
    51,156
    Thanks
    3,173
    Thanked 14,758 Times in 10,237 Posts
    Groans
    2
    Groaned 572 Times in 539 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Oneuli View Post
    I'm not deny that talking point is out there. I'm just pointing out it doesn't line up with the data. You can see it in this graph:



    As you can see, there was very rapid increase in incarceration rates from about 1980 through about 1995, followed by slower increases through about 2008, followed by falling rates. The result was that the Clinton era, taken as a whole, had a slower increase in rates than the Reagan and Bush eras before him. Another view of a similar thing, here:

    https://sentencingproject.org/wp-con...orrections.pdf

    Again, the rise is practically vertical until around 1995, then there's a shallower rise through 2008, then a decline.
    There are many articles out there about it. Here’s one from a fellow liberal:

    https://www.theguardian.com/commenti...s-thomas-frank

  5. #95 | Top
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Posts
    51,156
    Thanks
    3,173
    Thanked 14,758 Times in 10,237 Posts
    Groans
    2
    Groaned 572 Times in 539 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Oneuli View Post
    I'm not deny that talking point is out there. I'm just pointing out it doesn't line up with the data. You can see it in this graph:




    As you can see, there was very rapid increase in incarceration rates from about 1980 through about 1995, followed by slower increases through about 2008, followed by falling rates. The result was that the Clinton era, taken as a whole, had a slower increase in rates than the Reagan and Bush eras before him. Another view of a similar thing, here:

    https://sentencingproject.org/wp-con...orrections.pdf

    Again, the rise is practically vertical until around 1995, then there's a shallower rise through 2008, then a decline.
    Michelle Alexander (a black woman) wrote The New Jim Crow. Here’s an article she wrote for The Nation about the Clinton’s from a black perspective

    https://www.thenation.com/article/hi...peoples-votes/

  6. #96 | Top
    Join Date
    Aug 2018
    Location
    NYC
    Posts
    2,943
    Thanks
    401
    Thanked 1,627 Times in 1,004 Posts
    Groans
    0
    Groaned 109 Times in 108 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Truth Detector View Post
    If Obama had done NOTHING, the economy would have grown...
    Yes, very likely true. Even the longest of recessions (e.g., the one that three consecutive GOP presidents led us into, starting in 1929) don't last forever. So, chances are even if Obama had done nothing, eventually the economy would have grown again. But would it have kept growing, without interruption, for the balance of his presidency? Well, historically, there are very few examples of economies growing for as long as the Obama one did. Usually another recession shows up within a few years. Recessions started during the presidencies of both Bushes, Reagan, Carter, Nixon, Eisenhower, Hoover, Coolidge, Harding, etc. In fact, often by the time someone has been in office as long as Obama was, multiple recessions have happened -- for example, two during the Bush years, or three during the Eisenhower years. But no recession started during the Obama presidency.

    What Obama did was cause stagnation of the recovery
    A good way to check that theory is simply to bench-mark us against other wealthy nations, all of which were subject to the same global recession. The fact is, the US emerged with significantly stronger growth than the average wealthy nation, following the recession. In fact, most of them double-dipped into a second recession, while the US moved ahead.

    On another note, Obama also accomplished that which only Clinton had done prior to his Presidency, lose the House and the Senate by a massive margin.
    That really highlights the difference between conservative and liberal thinking about politics. From a liberal perspective, the purpose of politics is to do good for the people. Thus, the test of a politician's effectiveness is whether the people wound up better off. That's why I focus on how there was across-the-board improvement for the people during the Obama years. But from a conservative perspective, the purpose of politics is to acquire more power for the politician's political faction. Thus, the test of a politician's effectiveness is whether his party gained or lost seats. People should keep that in mind, when they vote. If you want your politicians fighting to make the lives of the American people better, vote Democrat. If you want your politicians fighting to gain more power for their party, vote Republican.
    Last edited by Oneuli; 01-11-2019 at 07:48 AM.

  7. #97 | Top
    Join Date
    Aug 2018
    Location
    NYC
    Posts
    2,943
    Thanks
    401
    Thanked 1,627 Times in 1,004 Posts
    Groans
    0
    Groaned 109 Times in 108 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Truth Detector View Post
    So crime wasn't dealt with
    No, it was. As you'll recall, during Obama's presidency, the violent crime rate, murder rate, and property crime rate all fell significantly. Or did you not know that?

  8. #98 | Top
    Join Date
    Aug 2018
    Location
    NYC
    Posts
    2,943
    Thanks
    401
    Thanked 1,627 Times in 1,004 Posts
    Groans
    0
    Groaned 109 Times in 108 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by cawacko View Post
    There are many articles out there about it. Here’s one from a fellow liberal:

    https://www.theguardian.com/commenti...s-thomas-frank
    You seem not to have read what I wrote. Again, "I'm not deny that talking point is out there. " So, telling me there "are many articles out there" is just repeating what I've already told you I know. But, as you can see, the data doesn't line up with the talking point. Although incarceration rates did, in fact, rise under Clinton, they rose significantly more slowly than they had under Reagan and Bush before him. It was, in relative terms, an improvement. Then that new, lower, pace held steady until around the time Obama took office, when we got a bigger improvement, which wasn't just a relative improvement, but an improvement in absolute terms.

  9. #99 | Top
    Join Date
    Aug 2018
    Location
    NYC
    Posts
    2,943
    Thanks
    401
    Thanked 1,627 Times in 1,004 Posts
    Groans
    0
    Groaned 109 Times in 108 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by cawacko View Post
    Michelle Alexander (a black woman) wrote The New Jim Crow. Here’s an article she wrote for The Nation about the Clinton’s from a black perspective

    https://www.thenation.com/article/hi...peoples-votes/
    Again, you're just telling me what I already said I know: that talking point is out there. But, take a look at the data. Do you see how the line got bent to a lower slope during the Clinton years?

  10. #100 | Top
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Posts
    51,156
    Thanks
    3,173
    Thanked 14,758 Times in 10,237 Posts
    Groans
    2
    Groaned 572 Times in 539 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Oneuli View Post
    You seem not to have read what I wrote. Again, "I'm not deny that talking point is out there. " So, telling me there "are many articles out there" is just repeating what I've already told you I know. But, as you can see, the data doesn't line up with the talking point. Although incarceration rates did, in fact, rise under Clinton, they rose significantly more slowly than they had under Reagan and Bush before him. It was, in relative terms, an improvement. Then that new, lower, pace held steady until around the time Obama took office, when we got a bigger improvement, which wasn't just a relative improvement, but an improvement in absolute terms.
    I’m trying to understand are you arguing this was good legislation?

  11. The Following User Says Thank You to cawacko For This Post:

    Truth Detector (01-11-2019)

  12. #101 | Top
    Join Date
    Aug 2018
    Location
    NYC
    Posts
    2,943
    Thanks
    401
    Thanked 1,627 Times in 1,004 Posts
    Groans
    0
    Groaned 109 Times in 108 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by cawacko View Post
    I’m trying to understand are you arguing this was good legislation?
    No. I'm arguing it didn't do what its critics imagine it did (drive a big increase in incarceration). The rise in incarceration predated the legislation.... dating back to Reagan's escalation of the war on drug users. In fact, following the legislation, incarceration rates rose more slowly. I don't think that's because of the legislation -- I think it's because actual crime rates came down. But there's no sign that it made things much worse, which is what the critics allege.

  13. #102 | Top
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    Ventura CA
    Posts
    48,164
    Thanks
    55,332
    Thanked 8,485 Times in 7,397 Posts
    Groans
    3,768
    Groaned 2,814 Times in 2,556 Posts
    Blog Entries
    1

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Oneuli View Post
    From a liberal perspective, the purpose of politics is to do good for the people. Thus, the test of a politician's effectiveness is whether the people wound up better off.
    You couldn't be MORE wrong. But let's discuss this topic. How is turning citizens into dependent wards of the state making people better off snowflake? I am amused by a leftist ideology that is built around the LIE that Government is good and one that dishonest political apparatchiks promise people free stuff to buy their votes is good.

    There is NOTHING good about a massive state filled with stifling regulations being used by politicians to enslave the citizens. If you had a brain and an IQ above room temperature, you could comprehend the OBVIOUS. Our Founders knew this and attempted to design a government that was LIMITED and that didn't work well and left the citizens free to pursue their own fates, happiness and prosperity.

    Government isn't there to do good for people. It is there to provide for our laws, copyright protection, defend borders and provide basic services like roads, police, courts, post office etc.

    Quote Originally Posted by Oneuli View Post
    But from a conservative perspective, the purpose of politics is to acquire more power for the politician's political faction. Thus, the test of a politician's effectiveness is whether his party gained or lost seats.
    You just described the Democratic Party of the Jackass you moron. No wonder you bloviate with such inane stupidity all the time; you're an idiot. A lying dishonest one at that.

    Quote Originally Posted by Oneuli View Post
    If you want your politicians fighting to make the lives of the American people better, vote Democrat. If you want your politicians fighting to gain more power for their party, vote Republican.
    You're such a moron. You have got it exactly backwards. But then, with an IQ equal to room temperature, this is what one expects and why you are the perfect Democratic constituent. You're clueless, you're a liar, you're and idiot and you think BIG Government is good. BUT....only when YOUR guys are in charge right hypocrite?

    STFU, seriously.
    “A wise and frugal government… shall restrain men from injuring one another, shall leave them otherwise free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement, and shall not take from the mouth of labor the bread it has earned. This is the sum of good government.” — Thomas Jefferson, First Inaugural Address, March 4, 1801

    The real fantasy world is the one that allows Democrats to run from a past that never was to a future no one wants

  14. #103 | Top
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    Ventura CA
    Posts
    48,164
    Thanks
    55,332
    Thanked 8,485 Times in 7,397 Posts
    Groans
    3,768
    Groaned 2,814 Times in 2,556 Posts
    Blog Entries
    1

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Oneuli View Post
    No, it was. As you'll recall, during Obama's presidency, the violent crime rate, murder rate, and property crime rate all fell significantly. Or did you not know that?
    No it wasn't; they lowered the bar for incarceration and let people out early. Grow a brain.
    “A wise and frugal government… shall restrain men from injuring one another, shall leave them otherwise free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement, and shall not take from the mouth of labor the bread it has earned. This is the sum of good government.” — Thomas Jefferson, First Inaugural Address, March 4, 1801

    The real fantasy world is the one that allows Democrats to run from a past that never was to a future no one wants

  15. #104 | Top
    Join Date
    Aug 2018
    Location
    NYC
    Posts
    2,943
    Thanks
    401
    Thanked 1,627 Times in 1,004 Posts
    Groans
    0
    Groaned 109 Times in 108 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Truth Detector View Post
    You couldn't be MORE wrong. But let's discuss this topic. How is turning citizens into dependent wards of the state making people better off....
    It's not. That's part of why it's such a good thing that Obama drove both unemployment and poverty numbers lower.

    Government isn't there to do good for people.
    Ours is. It's right there in our nation's statement of purpose, the preamble to the Constitution. One of the core purposes was to promote the general welfare.

  16. #105 | Top
    Join Date
    Aug 2018
    Location
    NYC
    Posts
    2,943
    Thanks
    401
    Thanked 1,627 Times in 1,004 Posts
    Groans
    0
    Groaned 109 Times in 108 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Truth Detector View Post
    No it wasn't
    Check again. What do you think the murder rate, violent crime rate, and property crime rate were in 2008? 2016?

Similar Threads

  1. James Inhofe (R) Oklahoma - latest Repugnant huckster busted.
    By Nomad in forum Current Events Forum
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 12-13-2018, 08:48 AM
  2. Religious huckster Benny Hinn Ministries RAIDED BY IRS, postal inspectors..
    By Bill in forum Religion, Philosophy, and Ethics
    Replies: 19
    Last Post: 06-08-2017, 01:35 PM
  3. Replies: 16
    Last Post: 12-30-2016, 04:47 PM
  4. Hoax.... who on here fell for it???
    By Cancel 2016.2 in forum Current Events Forum
    Replies: 12
    Last Post: 11-13-2008, 10:27 AM
  5. Rockers tell Huckster and McCain to lay off their songs
    By Cypress in forum Off Topic Forum
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 02-15-2008, 03:55 PM

Bookmarks

Posting Rules

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •