^ lol, does your delusion know no bounds? By what metrics has "liberalism" failed?

Let's look at some hard numbers...
Crime:
Biggest drop under liberal (clinton), conservative then causes unwanted inflection


Poverty:
Biggest drop under liberals, conservatives stagnate or make things worse:


SAT Scores:
Biggest rise under liberal (clinton), conservatives drop or stagnate:


Life expectancy of blacks:
Drops significantly under Reagan-era, rises significantly under Clinton:


Births to unmarried mothers:
Rises steadily until Clinton, then slows significantly


AIDS cases:
Rises significantly through Reagan era, drops significantly after Clinton:


By most metrics, most of the positive change in America seems to happen under liberal gov. If you want to label any ideology a complete failure, there's far more evidence to indicate it's conservatism, not liberalism, that is the failure.

5/12/2008 12:47:46 AM

so basically:

1) reagan invented aids, and clinton stopped it. bush doesn't give a fuck and it barely declines with him

2) jimmy carter didn't give a fuck about black SAT scores, and under clinton it was in the cellar and had no where to go but up. lol

3) crime fighting skills in the 90's took control of the population finally, Clinton is our God and savior of that. good thing we aren't going to vote his wife into office, fuck if we want low crime again. lol

4) nixon brought the poverty levels down.. and then bill clinton brought em back up

5) once again, bill clinton our god of this nation figured out how to save marriages in this nation at a better rate the very day he takes office.

and finally

6) aids cases follows the standard model growth curve for diseases.. and then proceeds with a beautiful decay of growth just like the mathematical models have predicted. but once again lets give our buddy bill clinton the credit.

thank GOD we aren't going to elect his wife into the oval office.

lol @ democrat logic.

5/12/2008 12:57:50 AM

damn after reading rats post you'd think the dems wouldnt have any support at all. lol

5/12/2008 1:00:34 AM

^ actually, after reading his posts, his stupidity kind of explains why his side's policies are often failures.

5/12/2008 1:04:36 AM

actually: you'da thunk you peoples deserved more than 2 terms in the oval office during the past 28 years.

lol

5/12/2008 1:06:39 AM

^you just posted reason number 5942038576 that dems should win this year

the country is sucking right now and repubs have been in charge 20 of last 28 years...simple logic?

[Edited on May 12, 2008 at 1:15 AM. Reason : .]

5/12/2008 1:14:32 AM

^and you just posted reason number 1 why they voted them in to begin with....


b/c carter fucked up everything we had done since WW2 to make this country great in a matter of 4 years! now he and his compadres are going back to hamas and company to say they are sorry for not fucking us up enough when he had the chance..

lol

5/12/2008 1:17:09 AM

so if obama wins what do you foresee happening?

if mccain wins i see gas continually going up, food prices continually going up, i see inflation...i generally do not see the world as good under mccain as i do obama

[Edited on May 12, 2008 at 1:20 AM. Reason : .]

5/12/2008 1:19:20 AM

honestly, i see obama stuck in the mud with a 51-49 democrat or republican senate (with not enough to stop a filibuster) and accomplishing very little.

i'd rather just give him the oval office in january, with a totally democrat congress. judicial might be an issue, but you'll at least be able to get some stuff done

then if the country is going great, we'll know who did it. the democrats.

if not, repeat that and vote in the republicans the same way (in case obama sinks everything to shit)

5/12/2008 1:23:53 AM

i pretty much agree with all that except that theres gonna be like 57 or 58 dems in the senate

5/12/2008 1:25:11 AM

^ maybe. but still, you need 2/3 of senate (67) to get shit done mister

poor obama. hell, poor mccain, or whoever gets the oval office

5/12/2008 1:26:06 AM

honestly at least if obama loses mccain will conceed some issues to shut the dems up like stem cell and environment shit

[Edited on May 12, 2008 at 1:28 AM. Reason : and hes been bringing up comprehensive immigration reform again lately]

5/12/2008 1:27:39 AM

yeh, i'm pro stem cell personally.

environment. ppffft. if we fuck up enough mother earth will wipe us out. until then, i'm for at least basic environmental principles. but plz not the ones that are gonna make me feel like i'm in a 3rd world country again.

5/12/2008 1:29:19 AM

i feel as though the "right" answer is to say yeah i care about the environment...in reality....i'm not gonna be here prolly more than 70 more years....i feel the earth got at least 400-500 years before anything gets "that" bad

BUT

being a prt major, i need presidents that like nature lol

[Edited on May 12, 2008 at 1:31 AM. Reason : .]

5/12/2008 1:30:49 AM

lol

i need a president who says

DOUBLE the military budget
10X the nasa budget
KILL social security and save for yourself
PRO war
PRO environmental
PRO capitalist + low tax economy, let businesses run the shit
BUILD a fucking huge ass particle accelerator the size of nebraska underground so we can figure out cold fusion
AND lastly, somebody who isn't afraid to fire a few warning shot missles into Iran just to fuck with them for making nukes. lol

5/12/2008 1:41:40 AM

DOUBLEhalven(sp? lol) the military budget
10X the nasa budget
KILL social security and save for yourself
PRO afghanistan war(only way i'm cool with staying in iraq is if we steal their oil...literally)
PRO environmental
PRO capitalist + low tax economy except that top 2 percent thing, let businesses run the shit
BUILD a fucking huge ass particle accelerator the size of nebraska underground so we can figure out cold fusion
AND lastly, somebody who isn't afraid to fire a few warning shot missles into Iran just to fuck with them for making nukes. lol

[Edited on May 12, 2008 at 1:53 AM. Reason : barack obama ftw]

5/12/2008 1:52:10 AM

oh and i don't see any of that happening sadly

but since africa and half it's population is literally being flushed down the earth toilet so to speak, i'm guessing our amount in aid to africa will rise to Quadrabillions more than what they used to be.

give a man a fish and he eats and steals it and sells it to black market, teach a man to fish and gets the shit bored out of him and goes to war with himself for 30 years straight. lol

5/12/2008 1:57:15 AM

yeah this hunger thing is great...finally something that plays into the americans hand...and the myanmar thing...i know i shouldnt feel good about things like that but i kinda am happy burma got fucked up

5/12/2008 2:05:09 AM

Rat you don't need a huge majority to win in the Senate. 2/3 is only needed to overturn a veto. 60 is needed to bring a vote to count. 51 is all you need to win a vote unless the president vetoes. But why would Obama be vetoing a large number of Democratic bills anyway? Please learn how the government works.

5/12/2008 2:29:28 AM

crime went down in the 90s due to conservative policies on crime put forth in the 80s.

5/12/2008 8:30:54 AM

Lies, damn lies and statistics. Come on moron, I know you're able to put together a more well constructed argument than raw numbers with no context.

1) Crime statistics: And what about the largest increase under a democrat? Context is everything of course, because that huge increase is also right around the time of the civil rights movement, social strife = crime. Likewise, the decrease under clinton might have something to do with the fact that immediately prior, some of the first (useful) concealed carry laws and various self defense and castle doctrine laws began to take effect. Also, the end of the cold war, and a period of economic growth in a new industry = less crime. Again, context. Also missing is the last 5 years under bush.

2) Poverty: Seems to have actually stayed fairly steady since the 70's. Also note that the largest drop in senior poverty occurred under a republican, and the largest increase in child poverty occurred under a democrat.

3) SAT scores: And none of this might be influenced by the changing demographics of the people taking the SATs (more people who, honestly shouldn't be heading off to college) and changes to the test over time? Again, context is key.

4) Life expectancy of blacks: Again see historical context (i.e. crime in inner cities, us crime rate), also note that the largest rise is under a republican at the beginning of that graph and that bush (for all his not caring about blacks) has managed to not only maintain the increase seen under clinton, but also increase the rate.

5) Unmarried births: Again, ignoring social context, or do you really think the changes of society have no bearing on this?

6) AIDs: Rises perhaps because we were discovering and reporting it for the first time? Or do we seriously believe that in 1981 that 0 people in the entire US had AIDs?

Again, I know you're smarter than this.

5/12/2008 8:39:00 AM

I want to respond to the graphs, specifically:

Quote :

"Poverty: Biggest drop under liberals, conservatives stagnate or make things worse:"

So Nixon was a liberal? Jimmy Carter a conservative?

Quote :

"Drops significantly under Reagan-era, rises significantly under Clinton:"

Are we ignoring the rise under Bush? Nixon? And the 4 years of CLinton's first term (stagnation)? You know 1994 was when the Republicans took congress. Maybe that has something to do with it?

Quote :

"Rises steadily until Clinton, then slows significantly"

Nice spin. Still highest ever under Clinton.


Your problem is that you're so damned bias that you couldn't recognize a single thing done that was good by a Republican/Conservative.

5/12/2008 8:57:54 AM

btw...mccain had not one but 2 staffers resign for supporting the junta

5/12/2008 9:07:33 AM

Quote :

"one example is Miranda which Congress specifically has tried to overturn and the supreme court has overruled repeatedly. "

Honestly I feel that if someone does not know their rights and is willing to spill the beans over a crime that committed; I say let them. This would save millions if not billions in costs of lengthy trials throughout the US and help relieve the over-burdening already experience by the court system as is.

As far as moron's graphs go they make sense. A democrat/liberal in the whitehouse is going to be working harder to tax the middle class/ upper class in order to provide free handouts and other social services to the "struggling poor". So it only makes sense that "life" would improve since people are living off the government instead of being forced to dwell in poverty if they are to lazy to get a job.

Although I did like what clinton did in office. He seemed fairly conservative for a democrat when it came to economic policies; and was rather moderate to liberal leaning in social policies.

[Edited on May 12, 2008 at 11:21 AM. Reason : a]

5/12/2008 11:20:15 AM

Quote :

"Your problem is that you're so damned bias that you couldn't recognize a single thing done that was good by a Republican/Conservative."

Your problem is your reading comprehension is so poor, you didn't realize I was responding to the assertion that...

Quote :

"liberalism has failed on a grand front both on the executive and legislative sides of government"

.

I was not claiming that liberalism was perfect or neo-Jesus, just merely that it hasn't "failed on a grand front" as the worst poster in TSB claimed without batting an eye. You all should be worried that people like him are on your side.

5/12/2008 11:45:28 AM

My reading comprehension???

Look at your poverty graph and your "analysis."


Then start claiming that others can't comprehend. Maybe it's what we're comprehending that you don't agree with.

5/12/2008 12:11:40 PM

Quote :

"Your problem is your reading comprehension is so poor, you didn't realize I was responding to the assertion that... Quote : "liberalism has failed on a grand front both on the executive and legislative sides of government" "

5/12/2008 12:36:40 PM

Quote :

"My reading comprehension??? Look at your poverty graph and your "analysis." Then start claiming that others can't comprehend. Maybe it's what we're comprehending that you don't agree with."

5/12/2008 12:37:55 PM

http://www.thingsyoungerthanmccain.com/

here's a bunch more reasons..

[Edited on May 12, 2008 at 12:45 PM. Reason : ]

5/12/2008 12:44:46 PM

^ I clicked that link and it immediately made me

Title: Things younger than Republican Presidential candidate (oh, and did I forget to mention “war hero”?) John McCain

WTF? war hero in quotes? Is this guy really questioning that?

Besides, I thought the democrats had learned from the last time they tried to exploit age in a campaign...

Quote :

"I want you to know that also I will not make age an issue of this campaign. I am not going to exploit, for political purposes, my opponent's youth and inexperience."

[Edited on May 12, 2008 at 12:56 PM. Reason : .]

5/12/2008 12:52:23 PM

While you may like the things Bush has done in office; the notion that Bush's policies have helped the poor contrary to the policies of a more liberal candidate are laughable.

Bush was not elected for his sympathy for the lower and working class. I consider this an "unimportant" issue for me and factors little into my dissatisfaction of Bush's presidency.

5/12/2008 12:56:05 PM

Oeuvre, they have to use "war heroes" because democrats don't serve in the armed forces these days. They are all pussies that hide behind racism and " " 's all day.

This doesn't suprise me at all.

5/12/2008 1:41:59 PM

Wonder if this guy did a blog about "war hero" John Kerry?

5/12/2008 1:43:51 PM

^lol

at least he threw his medals away. any hint at being patriotic to the USA is being expunged from the democratic party at a rapid rate. they'll split for europe and africa soon.

5/12/2008 1:59:50 PM

I think that is an overly generalization. so do you really think all the minorities (black, hispanic, asian) in the military are all hard-core republicans too.

5/12/2008 2:27:54 PM

AGAIN WHAT THE FUCK IS IT WITH YOU PEOPLE STRETCHING OUR ARGUMENTS? WHERE THE FUCK DID ANYONE SAY ALL MINORITIES (THANKS FOR NOTATING WHAT A MINORITY IS, BTW) IN THE MILITARY ARE REPUBLICAN?

I have read, though, that something like 80% of the armed forces are registered GOP.

[Edited on May 12, 2008 at 2:46 PM. Reason : .]

5/12/2008 2:45:41 PM

Well that 80% does not translate into the Republicans in Congress or the White House.

5/12/2008 4:26:09 PM

Rat:

Quote :

"DOUBLE the military budget 10X the nasa budget KILL social security and save for yourself PRO war PRO environmental PRO capitalist + low tax economy, let businesses run the shit BUILD a fucking huge ass particle accelerator the size of nebraska underground so we can figure out cold fusion AND lastly, somebody who isn't afraid to fire a few warning shot missles into Iran just to fuck with them for making nukes. lol"

I don't even know what that first bolded statement is supposed to mean, but it can't be anything good and you're a fucking idiot of the highest degree to say that.

The second thing shows how stupid you are as well because building particle accelerators doesn't really help us understand how to make fusion happen. We already have fusion, they just haven't found a way to control it. Currently the most promising thing is using magnetic fields to control the energy unleashed from the fusion, but even after solving that, turning that energy into something useful will be a challenge. Particle accelerators only help us understand smaller and smaller bits of atoms and particles and shit. It doesn't really help us get any closer to "cold fusion" as you put it. Stop watching The Saint. That shit was just a movie.

But even so, that first statement is just so fucking ignorant. Pro War? What the fuck is wrong with you? Are you really that fucking stupid?

5/12/2008 4:35:12 PM

are you pro Revolutionary War? how about pro WW2? i sure as hell would hope so

5/12/2008 4:40:13 PM

Yes sir. I am pro war.

I also endorse science. You sir, endorse your abortion loving, pot smoking, gay loving hippy faggots, pro hamas, anti american ways all you want. I'll have no part of your aids poz parties.

5/12/2008 4:43:44 PM

Rat, the super-fun adventure Aryan KKK club party is tomorrow, hope to see you there with your sheets as usual!

5/12/2008 4:46:33 PM

so it is the baby killing or the aids or the gay sex you like best?

5/12/2008 4:48:31 PM

not that I endorse what he just said, but he made no mention of a minority or did he allude to the KKK...

[Edited on May 12, 2008 at 4:50 PM. Reason : .]

5/12/2008 4:49:52 PM

Quote :

"GAIN WHAT THE FUCK IS IT WITH YOU PEOPLE STRETCHING OUR ARGUMENTS"

Did not in my thread did you assert that the use of "all" "everyone" "none" makes for "weak sauce" arguments???

Rat

Quote :

"They are all pussies that hide behind racism"

I was merely criticizing your fellow neo-con colleague with his weak overgeneralizing of members in the armed forces and democrats. I think a prime example to counter this is [user]luisclues[/user]. He is in the military yet is a self proclaimed liberal. We have actually clashed on several topics on the economy and social programs as I have taken the more "conservative" stance against his liberal stance.
not doubt the least that our military men are more right leaning and conservative then what is representative of our population as a whole.
Claiming however, that all are republican as Rat asserts is a "weak" position.

[Edited on May 12, 2008 at 4:54 PM. Reason : a]

5/12/2008 4:51:05 PM

If he can make wide sweeping generalizations, why can't I?

Oh wait,

Quote :

"bortion loving, pot smoking, gay loving hippy faggots, pro hamas, anti american"

isn't insulting at all, right?

5/12/2008 4:52:24 PM

Quote :

"Never think that war, no matter how necessary, nor how justified, is not a crime. ~Ernest Hemingway"

Quote :

"All wars are follies, very expensive and very mischievous ones. In my opinion, there never was a good war or a bad peace. When will mankind be convinced and agree to settle their difficulties by arbitration? ~Benjamin Franklin"

Quote :

"I have never advocated war except as a means of peace. ~Ulysses S. Grant"

Quote :

"War is never a solution; it is an aggravation. ~Benjamin Disraeli"

Quote :

"I recoil with horror at the ferociousness of man. Will nations never devise a more rational umpire of differences than force? Are there no means of coercing injustice more gratifying to our nature than a waste of the blood of thousands and of the labor of millions of our fellow creatures? ~Thomas Jefferson"

Rat, you're a fucking idiot. And there's nothing more to say about that.

5/12/2008 4:59:15 PM

Then feel free to sit back at home while the rest of the world laughs at your silly quotes and bombs your friends and relatives. lol

5/12/2008 5:03:02 PM

my quote wins

Quote :

"Want of foresight, unwillingness to act when action would be simple and effective, lack of clear thinking, confusion of counsel until the emergency comes, until self-preservation strikes its jarring gong—these are the features which constitute the endless repetition of history. -Winston Churchill"

That insane warhawk Winston!

[Edited on May 12, 2008 at 5:04 PM. Reason : .]

5/12/2008 5:03:23 PM

You are the most ignorant, stupid fuck alive. How can you actually justify being Pro-War? What the fuck does that even mean? Does that mean that in any situation you would use war as your first tool of negotiations? Or does that mean that no matter what the cost, you are for going to war for something you believe in? Either way, it neglects to realize the tremendous economic and social burden going to war brings with it. Anyone with half a brain realizes that going to war is a last resort and should only be done as a means of self-defense, either as true defense or preemptively. It should never be seen as anything remotely "good" though, as you would have it.

^ So you would rather take the advice of some English guy than the words of your fellow countrymen, all because his stance lines up more with yours? I'm sorry, I'll go with Franklin, Jefferson, Grant, and Hemingway.

[Edited on May 12, 2008 at 5:09 PM. Reason : ]

5/12/2008 5:07:29 PM

^yeh you pretty much made 1000 assumptions and blew that out of context. gg liberal.

the dems will never understand that. it's ok, that's why they've had the oval office 3 terms in the last FORTY years.

they'll never understand that a hitler or osama bin laden or a ghengis khan appears about 50 to 100 years somewhere. and their approach to defeating such evils is through hippy parades / raising taxes / and smearing themselves in order to appear to be friendly with their very enemies such as hamas currently.

[Edited on May 12, 2008 at 5:11 PM. Reason : .]

5/12/2008 5:09:47 PM