Rather than Useless Internet "Debates"...

For amusement, someone can go to various websites and say witty things like, "Hey Obamacare supporters, keep your laws off my body."  And this is somewhat amusing.  Not productive, but amusing.

An alternate idea may be to comment on such websites, and rather than counter others' stupid thoughts, you could just point out what fallacy they are committing.

Some idiot could claim X and you'd reply: "straw man," "ad hominem," fallacy of the anecdote," "projection," "questionable source," and so on.

Actually, you may not need "and so on," most people who argue things on the internet commit any and all of those listed errors.

It would be kinda funny:

Idiot: "blah, blah, blah"

me: "straw man"

Idiot: "Yeah, well you're a racist."

Me: "ad hominem"

Idiot: "You're only repeating rethuglican talking points."

Me: "projection"

and so on...

Blog Stuff & Meet Up

I'm through with commenting at HP.  Too much time wasted.

But another reason is because I've had too many comments moderated into oblivion.  I'm not sure why with any of them, and this last one was one too many.

Huffington Post Comments, 6/21/13

alice sophia

 Are you satisfied enough now, GOPers? The GOP can't death spiral fast enough. 

Me

“How exactly, are the dems better?” 

JessWonderin 

if you cannot tell the diffidence . PLEASE stay away from the voting booth . . .  

Me

I notice that you couldn't come up with a reason. 

***

CSmith476

Hear, Hear.

Libertarians, in my mind, also often miss the fact that we are indeed stronger as a community. Is it not worth the requirement of storm shelters to see more human lives saved? Forget the cost in dollars, this "regulation" would save lives easily. Are more neighbors, friends, and family surviving a storm not incentive enough?  

Me

By your logic we should mandate 5 mph speed limits, mandatory exercise each day, banning of certain foods...

If it saves lives why shouldn't we end all air travel, ban all knives, baseball bats, ladders, and that evil water that some drown in?

CSmith476

 Well I suppose one could reduce my argument to something simplistic like that.
Of course nuance exists, but in the example at hand, storm shelters, the choice seems clear. 

Me

Its not "nuance". Your argument is that we should legally require things that save lives.

So why not a law mandating daily exercise? 

CSmith476

No, you were making a generalization about of my statement.  Extrapolating so short a statement to an entire way of legislating is absurd. 

Me

What is your argument if not: we should use taxpayer dollars to do things that save lives?

So, why not mandatory (taxpayer funded) healthy diets for everyone?

***

dprr

What? The Republicans have the majority, and THEY couldn't vote in enough numbers to pass the bill, and it's the Democrats' fault?  

Me

What? the democrats control the senate and THEY haven't mustered even one vote for any of Obama's proposed budgets? And its the republicans fault?

 dprr

What does that have to do with the food stamps vote? Oh, never mind. I see... you are a tea partier, and nothing you say has to make sense. All you can do is copy, paste, and substitute a few words.
Go ahead and repeat your brilliance on THIS now. The country is in awe, as indicated by the small percentage of Americans who approve of the tea party.

Me

If your going to answer your own question (incorrectly, I might add), then whats the point of posting the comment?

***
Easy123

Timmy please get off the computer until your mom gets home. Pfffffffft 

***
Me

Hey Obamacare supporters...keep your laws off my body.

arglebargle

 You're confused. This isn't about Obamacare.

Me

How can you say "keep your laws off my body" on one issue but not another?

***
 Rick4646

studies have shown higher minimum wage will stimulate our economy more because people spend more money and it's good for everyone...... I know you baggers want to keep people as poor as possible because the people you elect keep trying to pass bills to make it so; but at least look at facts before you post nonsense.

Me

Yeah. Yeah. We righties hate the poor! We want them all totally broke so they can buy all the junk we sell them with all of their......oh wait. 

***

Me

Hey Obamacare supporters...keep your laws off my body.

cats530

Don't worry - no one wants your body, misogynist. 

[editor's note: notice her user name! LOL!!!!]

Me

Projecting your own insecurities is the first sign of a problem.

Take the time to call someone who is qualified to help you.

Depression hotline: 1-800-273-8255

http://www.dbsalliance.org/site/PageServer?pagename=urgent_crisis_hotline

Good luck on your recovery!

Life's not so bad! 

Huffington Post Comments, 6/14/2013 Update

I left a lot of comments yesterday and got a lot of responses today.  I am not interested in responding today.  But here are some comments I received this morning:

PhilipTaylor

 INCREASE IN NATIONAL DEBT LAST 12 YEARS!

█ 5% Obama
██████████████████ 95% G0P-BU’SH-RY’AN

“How my Republican Party DESTR0YED the American Economy.”

 -- DAVlD ST0CKMAN (R), Director of the Office of Management and Budget under President RonaId Rea gan

A MUST READ!

G0P = GAVE $10 TRlLLl0N IN FREE STUFF TO $BILLIONAIRES, RlCH, AND C0RP0RATl0NS IN 8 YEARS CAUSlNG THE CRA'SH OF 2008!

BU’SH-RY’AN-G0P ADDED $9.9 TRlLLl0N to THE NATl0NAL DEBT!

$10 TRlLLl0N ALMOST -- $9.906 TRlLLl0N Added to US DE’BT by RY’AN for 65 DE’BT MAKlNG bills increasing spending or decreased revenues for programs NEVER paid for.

$_2,163,000,000,000 BU’SH Tax Cuts
$_1,468,000,000,000 “FA’KED WARS” - New Defense Spending
$__ 480,000,000,000 New Discretionary Spending - MOSTLY $C0RP0RATE ♜ WELFARE
$__ 262,000,000,000 Medicare Part WELFARE TO BlG PHAR’MA
$__ 196,000,000,000 New Misc. Spending
$__ 189,000,000,000 TARP
$__ 148,000,000,000 BU’SH 2008 - RY’AN’S BlG PU’SH FOR STlMULUS CHECKS
_______________________

$_ 5,000,000,000,000 BU’SH 2001 to 2008 Costs
$_ 4,906,000,000,000 BU’SH CARRYOVER 2009 to 2012 Costs

$_9,906,000,000,000 Total RY’AN Spending  =  ALMOST $10 TRlLLl0N

██████████████████ 10% DEFlClT % OF GDP 2008 UNDER BUSH
████████ 4% DEFlClT % OF GDP 2013 UNDER OBAMA
████ 2% DEFlClT % OF GDP 2015 CBO Projection

G0P = SO VERY SAD THEY L0ST THElR FRAUD SCAM FOR AU'STERlTY!

***
japhya1 

elTim...because NYC police shot three innocent men. That's why NYC paid out over 30 million dollars for wrongful action/doing regarding this case. Now suck on that...

[Another nice guy.  I wonder if he thinks I like cops. lol]

Huffington Post Comments, 6/14/2013

Sorry, Chilis, for the delay.

***

John P Miller

Thanks for your analysis of the "scandals" of the Obama administration pushed by the GOP that seem to have no traction with the American people except possibly the IRS one. I thought it was interesting that last week one official from Ohio who described himself as a conservative Republican said he was the one who decided to target the Republican groups for special scrutiny since these groups were new & he wanted to be sure that they evalulated each carefully since
they were setting a precedent.

Me

If we ignore the opinions of half the country, then everyone agrees with me!

Wait...doesn't that work both ways?

Liberal "logic" sure is funny!

pssdov

We just ignore the ignorant opinions of 47%, the number of people who voted Republican. And they don't really have opinions, just what FOX tells them to think.

Me

Have you any evidence you support your claim that republican voters have no opinions and only repeat what they're told?

How do you reconcile your tagline of "No act of kindness goes unnoticed" with your comment accusing the people who vote republican are ignorant sheep only repeating what they're told?

Is it kindness to imply that people are ignorant sheep just becasue they have a different political opinion than you do?

***
brklynivn

The last thing social conservatives are worried about are the liberties of Americans. 

Me

As opposed to liberals who aren't worried about the phone record keeping, against ownership of guns, against school choice....

(Note, to prevent the standard follow-up comment I revive when I post a comment like this: I am an anarcho-capitalist.) 

[ed note: I correctly predicted that he would call me a name related to my political affiliation.]

 brklynivn

And when did this all come about - hint - Patriot Act?

"Anarcho- capitalist"?  You mean tea-bagger. 

Me

Both parties are awful on civil liberties.

That is one reason I am no longer voting.

If you vote, then you are supporting the scam that is a "choice" between two "different" parties. 

Aren't you a pleasant fellow? I hope you're less rude in person.

By "anarcho-capitalist" I mean that I favor capitalism, becasue of the prosperity that has achieved, and think the government is corrupt and awful at everything that it does.

Should I conclude by calling you an insulting name? 

 brklynivn

Anarchy means one favors disorder above law - that's the definition of anarchy.  Anarcho-capitalism basically means unbridled capitalism outside the bounds of any rules or law - you know - like corporatism. 

Me

Anarchy means no government, not necessarily disorder.

What do you dislike about "corporatism"? Are the worst aspects of it any different from the evils our government does against us now?

 ***

News: Arms to Syria

Me

How do those of you who opposed intervention Iraq and Afghanistan and then voted for Obama feel now?  

Florin Milea

Poorly.

Me

Voting is for suckers.

Thanks for the honest answer. 

***

Me

How do those of you who opposed intervention Iraq and Afghanistan and then voted for Obama feel now?  

Rafael Tarnawiecki

Pissed 

Me

Thanks for the honest answer.

I apologize for voting for republicans in the past and promise not do do so again.

Will you promise to stop voting for the democrats? 

A Thoughtful, Impressive, Well Reasoned, and Well Sourced Critism of Me...

...can be found as an Anonymous comment on my post: Criticisms of Libertarians...Seem to Be Stupid.

The comment, in full:

AnonymousJune 7, 2013 at 5:22 PM 

you are an idiot

Dear Anonymous,

Well kind sir, I applaud you on your well reasoned criticism.   I submit that I am defeated by your wit, and well punctuated criticism.

I thank you for showing me the error of my ways.

But if I may make a simple request?  You don't need to be so shy, post with a name (any name) so that I may appropriately let you know how well you have destroyed all of my arguments and convinced me to fully change my world view.

Thanks again,

Tim

P.S. wanker 

Politics is Becoming Uninteresting

I'm not sure that politics isn't a waste of time.  Its not like your vote would accomplish much anyway.

But I have found the issues to be interesting.  How, for example, have we had only 8 balanced budgets since 1950?

In any case, I will now attempt the total refutation for any political argument whose answer is supposed to be government.

I realize that this is the following are the sort of arguments that are only convincing to people who think like me (more or less).  If we introduce those things called "feelings," then my following arguments won't convince anyone.

Then again, I'm not trying to convince anybody of anything.  I'm laying out I'm laying out my political thoughts to explain why I shall be focusing more of my attention elsewhere, because I am cool with my positions as they stand now.

Logical, historical, and anecdotal evidence are the three types of evidence that I can think of right now.  (Statistics should be included in "historical.")

Logical Evidence Against Government

• Taxing means that someone thinks that he knows how to spend your money better than you do.
• Regulating means that someone thinks that he knows how to protect you and live your life better than you do.
• Why would you work if you're paid not to?
• There is no way that a centralized organization can know what is best for all of millions, or thousands, or hundreds, or tens, of people better than they themselves.
• What percentage of government employees truly do their jobs with the good of the public in mind for every decision that they make?
• Basic economics (the book too) says that artificial rules and regulations distort and prevent individuals from interacting in their best interests.

Historical Evidence Against Government

• The periods of economic decline, in American history, coincide with massive government growth.  (The [un]civil war was about arguing the laws of government. The Great Depression was worsened by the New Deal.  Seventies shortages were worsened by government inflation.  Our current situation has been worsened by bailouts and "stimulus." etc.)
• Less government West Germany was better than more government East Germany
• USSR was socialist and millions died of politics and/or starvation.
• China was communist and tens of millions died of politics and/ or starvation.
• North Korea is communist and millions have died of politics and/ or starvation.
• Same with Vietnam, Cuba, Ethiopia, etc..
• Sweden went from richer per capita than the U.S. to poorer per capita since becoming socialist.  Are they still rioting in Stockholm?
• Various socialist countries in Europe are going bankrupt.

Anecdotal Evidence Against Government

All the above (and more) is all well and good but I haven't personally seen any of the historical evidence.  What have I seen personally?

I've been to less government and more prosperous Hong Kong and to more government and less prosperous China.

I've read P.J. O'Rourke's various accounts of what eastern Europe and Russia were like before 1989.  I haven't witnessed it but I've asked my dad who was there before 1989:

me: "P.J. O'Rourke says that Eastern Europe was bleak, dreary, depressing, and awful before 1989.  Was that true?

dad: "Oh yeah."

So I'm saying that I'm convinced with these arguments and more of similar ones, that the places with more government are worse than the places with less government.

I shall be endeavoring to avoid much politics on this blog and avoiding it in real life...to the extent that I am able considering that every aspect of my life has lots, and lots, and lots of rules and regulations directing what I can do, can't do, and how much I can do.

Millions have died thanks to government.  How can anyone support such an abomination?

Debating a Leftist

found thanks to the Free Northerner

Thanks to my experience debating the left, I think Fearsome Pirate is correct in this assessment: 

In an argument, we use logic. We test principles against each other. We marshal facts. We criticize and respond. Leftists do little or none of that because they are instinctual Marxists, and Marxism is an assault on everything we take for granted.

Let's pull apart one example that tends to befuddle the right: single motherhood.

There are three incontrovertible, incompatible truths:

1. Leftists adore single motherhood when conservatives attack polyamory.
2. Leftists do not practice single motherhood (poor Democrats aren't leftists; they're just a bought constituency).
3. Leftists abhor single motherhood when conservatives attack homogamy. 

You can find similar incompatibilities on any issue---guns, welfare, the working class, you name it. Conservatives tend to attack liberals along the vector of "hypocrisy." (Libertarians don't care; whatever ends up in more sexual license and less obligation on the part of parents is fine by them.) But this doesn't actually work, because it is based on the assumption that the leftist is arguing, and will attempt to bring his thoughts and beliefs at least into line with themselves if not with actual facts. However, this isn't what the liberal is doing. He's simply trying to promote the "oppressed class" du jour and simultaneously trying to shred the established civilization, and will grab whatever argument is most handy at the time to accomplish that. If we switch topics, he will switch arguments as fluidly and easily as a Pentecostal changes doctrines.

 The rest of his post is very interesting.

"Hold them to their own standards."

I suspect that the best way to debate a leftist is to understand their thinking and hold them to their own standards. 

When I debated them in the past I often tried analogies, and pointing out how hypocritical they are.  This didn't work becasue analogies distract their small minds, and they don't care about being hypocrites.

I shall try to read more stuff from progressives and less from conservatives and libertarians.  Once I've done this I may try to debate them again.

Balance the Budget Please

Vox Day posted an email that he received from a liberal.

I'd like to point out a paragraph in particular.

For example, I am a bleeding heart liberal.  If an unfortunate looking soul solicits me, I will do almost anything they ask.  My wife often remarks that I must have a glow that only grifters can see.  At the gas station, when I have parked my electric-only golf-cart sized car to run in and get some chai or tofu, I am often approached by someone with a hard luck story asking if they can have a dollar or two for gas so they can get home to their babies, or back to work, or whatever.  More often than not I fill their tank.  When the local church - not mine, I am not religious - had storm damage and needed donations for a new roof I split my emergency fund and donated timbers I had obtained for a DIY project.  

I can see where the average liberal is a good person, even if he is only a fraction as giving as the author above.   I can appreciate their stated goals of helping the poor and disadvantaged.

We should be able to civilly debate how to go about achieving the goals of improving the lives of everyone. We don't civilly debate.  For example: I've been called things like "arrogant" and "a racist" by liberals in person and never by non-liberals.  And anyone who has read my comment debates from the Huffigton Post knows that most of the liberals there seem to be incapable of disagreeing without using name calling and insults.  We can find evidence of union violence everywhere. Etc.

All that aside, one thing that we should not be debating is having a balanced budget.  It is inconceivable to me how we have gone only 8 years since 1950 with a balanced budget (table 1.1).  That is outright incompetence from both parties.  Why has this been acceptable to anyone?

I understand that it is difficult for a politician to try and make any changes to entitlements.  But in order to balance the budget, entitlements must be changed.

The author of the excerpted email shows us that even though we disagree on what our public policies should be, we can see that our political opponents can be good people.

But we should all agree that the federal budget must be balanced.  This should not be a subject for debate.  Even if we do things that I don't like (and are contrary to freedom and liberty) we need to balance the budget.  Balancing the budget should be the primary focus of our politicians.  Why are they wasting everyones' time on other stuff?


Its fine with me if you want to argue for a more progressive country.  We can have that debate.  But if you want your plan to work, and the country to survive, then propose laws that include balanced budgets.

The debate should be: a progressive vision with a balanced budget or a libertarian or conservative vision with a balanced budget.

Why is the news not full, everyday, with stories pointing out how incompetent our politicians are for being unable to even propose a balanced budget?

Political Posts

For a while I have been wondering if there has been a point to my posts that are of a political nature.  Why add one more small (by number of pageviews) voice to my political ideas, when there are already so many others?

I doubt that too many people who come here are liberals.  I have only had two comments from liberals, and they were both in response to the comment debates that I have occasionally.  It is my guess that liberals are less likely to seek out the opinions of their political opponents.

So why should I continue to write about politics when the choir can go other places and find better writers who are writing about the same sort of things?

And why write for liberals if they aren't coming here anyway, and if they are, then they should probably be reading Walter Williams and Thomas Sowell instead?

I thought of this post and a reason for my continuing just before I fell asleep, but now that I've slept on it I don't recall my answer for why I should continue.  I probably will continue, because it occasionally amuses me.

A Huffington Post Commenter Responds to This Blog

Last September I had a series of comment exchanges with Rumzee, at the Huffington Post.  He has recently discovered my repeating of the comments to this blog and he did not like what he saw.  For the full recording of our exchanges, in chronological order, please look at my "Deer Hunting" page under "Debating An Anti-Hunter."

I believe that his complaint comes from the fact that I did not, at least, link to the preceding post of comments.  In the post that he is complaining about I should have linked to its predecessor, here it is.

Had you by following my blog in real time you would have gotten the whole story.  As it was I was three months into my first blog, and I made a mistake in not linking to the previous post so that it would make sense after the fact.

For the record: I have copied and pasted, without editing, all of the comments during my "Debates in the Comments."  If anyone questions the order, or content, of any of the comments posted here, then tell me which comment you specifically question and include your email.  I will then forward you the email notification I received letting me know that someone replied to one of my comments.  (A few of the email notifications that I received were sent to my 'spam' folder, I did not 'unspam' them, and they have since been deleted.)

Rumzee specifically commented on this post of mine.

His comment:

AnonymousFebruary 2, 2013 at 3:53 PM

You have a lot of brass posting our discussion out of chronological order, assuming answers I would give to questions you never asked, and basically manipulating the discussion to make your points seem more than they actually were during our discussion. All that without my knowledge. You have proven yourself to be dishonest.

I was searching for a different Huffington Post comment I made a long while back and happened to come across your crapola here at this site.

Rumzee

My reply:

TimFebruary 2, 2013 at 6:36 PM

Thanks for stopping by.

The quotes are directly copied and pasted from the Huffington Post in the order that they occurred. I have not edited them in any way. Because our exchanges happened over the course of several days, they were copied here in different posts. The full listing of our comments is noted on my "Deer Hunting" page, under "Debating Anti-Hunter."

http://spootville.blogspot.com/p/deer-hunting-posts.html

If you question the order, or the editing, of any comments, then I will forward you the email notification I received for these comments.

If I have made an error in the order, then I do apologize. Please let me know which ones specifically are out of order and I shall make any corrections and issue an apology.

It is truly astonishing how often those of you on the left resort to name calling and insults.

Your comment could have been along the lines of: "The comment beginning with ... occurred at time x not time y."

How have I proven myself to be dishonest? You have not given any evidence to support this claim of yours.

If you tell me specifically where my error was, then I will look up the comment dates and times.

Once again we have a case of someone on the left using name calling and insults, rather than attempt an polite complaint.

We also, once again, have a statement "proven" to be true without any evidence.  You'll need to take his word for it that I misrepresented him at this blog.  But I am willing to give evidence to prove that I have not, if I am told where the specific problem is.

In future comments I shall include the date and time, as well as the specific article in question.

Rumzee, at least tell me where your specific complaint is.

***

One last note: Most of the spam comments on this blog are written by "anonymous."  I very nearly deleted Rumzee's comment here becasue of the "anonymous" author.

If you wish to comment here as "anonymous," then understand that your comment may get deleted accidentally.  It is not difficult to post under a name.  The name does not need to be your real name, it can be any name.  And you do not need to include your e-mail address either.

It is very easy to do this.  If you have difficulty, then click the following link, and read this post: How to Comment Using a Name (it has pictures and everything).

My thanks to Andrew for a very timely post.

Huffington Post Comments 2/1/2012

First take note of yesterday's post.

Quotes:

Commenter 1: "The man [Bush] is a dolt."

Commenter 2: "We didn't go after Bush personally..."


***

Me

Why is there such insistence to claim that anything a republican does comes from the "far right"?

lizt

Because the GOP has run out all the moderates and only has a far right base left.  

Me

Ha!

Before John McCain ran for president he was the democrats' favorite republican because of how often he sided with the democrats.

I stopped supporting the republicans when Mitt Romney, who signed socialized healthcare and gun control into law, became the GOP presidential nominee.

***

Me

Why is there such insistence to claim that anything a republican does comes from the "far right"?

Thomas Pain

Because the lunatic fringe on the "far right" has pre-empted what used to be the Republican Party, and if anybody with more sense still thinks they're Republians, they aren't paying attention.

Me

"lunatic fringe"

Oooo, insults! I'll change my mind then!

Btw, using numbers from this website, the NRA is less of a "lunatic fringe" than gays.

4.2 million NRA members > 4 million gays

http://spootville.blogspot.com/2013/01/gays-more-of-ideological-fringe-than-nra.html

***

strothersgirl03

The only sixty books Bush might have read, would have been picture books. The man is a dolt.

The President says he has done some skeet shooting when at Camp David.
Didn't say he did it all the time. Didn't claim to be an expert. Though they act like that's what he said.
After all the B.S. Bush said about WMD, etc. Then, your pathological candidate Romney, you should just shut up and be quiet.
This is the best you can do though with this President. Make a tempest in a teacup over any casual remark.
Republicans are pathetic.

Me

It must be sad having no actual arguments and needing to resort to name calling and insults instead.

Btw, Obamacare supporters: keep your laws off my body.

silverlaker71

Funny to see a conservative opposing laws that concern what choices people have about their bodies...

Me

Funny that you think that I am a conservative.

I'm more of a libertarian.

While we're on the subject of laws about "peoples' bodies"...

Dear Obamacare supporters,

Keep your laws off my body.

Sincerely,

Tim 

 ***

strothersgirl03

The only sixty books Bush might have read, would have been picture books. The man is a dolt.

The President says he has done some skeet shooting when at Camp David.
Didn't say he did it all the time. Didn't claim to be an expert. Though they act like that's what he said.
After all the B.S. Bush said about WMD, etc. Then, your pathological candidate Romney, you should just shut up and be quiet.
This is the best you can do though with this President. Make a tempest in a teacup over any casual remark.
Republicans are pathetic.

Me

It must be sad having no actual arguments and needing to resort to name calling and insults instead.

Btw, Obamacare supporters: keep your laws off my body.

strothersgirl03

Funny coming from a supporter of the party that spends all their time focused on trivial things to insult the President with. Kind of pot and kettle isn't it?
As for Obama care....We'll gladly keep off your body.
Bet we're not the only ones.
;)  

Me

What makes you think that I support the republicans?  I didn't vote because both Romney and Obama signed socialized healthcare into law, and favor gun control.

As for "trivial things to insult the President with", I can find several articles, on this very website about republican plans to balance the budget.

Can you find me one example of a democratic plan to balance the budget, on this website?

Also, its been nearly four years since the Senate has passed any budget; which party has controlled the senate during this time?

"We'll gladly keep off your body.  Bet we're not the only ones."

Another insult?  I have a challenge for you (it may be difficult for you): write a post without insulting anyone.

Good luck.

How can you say, "keep your laws off my body" when it comes to abortion, and not when it comes to other healthcare laws?  Isn't that hypocritical?

strothersgirl03

The healthcare law is the same as having car insurance. It's not making you take a specific insurance, just have some.

People who don't end up being paid for by all the rest of us thru Medicaid. I, for one am tired of covering other peoples bills if I don't have to. It's just trying to make each person able to be responsible in some way for their own.

As to which party you support, when peole start off by saying Libs in a somewhat insulting way, it certainly appears to be a Republican backer.

And everyone should vote. It's not just a right and a privilege, but a responsibility as a citizen.
Don't like either Republican or Democrat, then find another choice.

As to budget, I agree. One should be presented.
To your defense of the Republicans (which, again, certainly sounds like your party, though I don't blame you for denying them, I would too) and them having a budget plan, they had lots of numbers that they either never released, or didn't really add up when they did.
In fact during the whole campaign they refused to give out details of most of their genius (they assured us) plans.

I do apologize for the insults. 

Me

Obamacare is not just about making sure that we have insurance.  If it were, the laws would read "all citizens must have health insurance coverage."  It also includes laws about what type of insurance that we are required to buy and there are many other rules about what must specifically be in the insurance.  For example: You cannot buy a high deductible, low premium insurance policy, becasue the insurance that we get must include coverage for lots of things that we may or may not want.  My health insurance is required to cover pregnancy, despite me being a guy and I am therefore unlikely to ever get pregnant.

Your second paragraph is interesting.  First the government decided that it wanted to pay for the healthcare of the poor with medicare and medicaid.  Many became unhappy with these programs and so the government decided that it wanted to fix the problem by adding yet another government program.

Why should we pay for the healthcare of those that don't have insurance?  Would you still support Obamacare if we had never had medicare and medicaid, and we had actual competition to lower healthcare costs and improve quality all along?  If we could buy healthcare from where ever we want, and could get the plan that we want? Like high deductible plans for the young an healthy?

Why should me voting be of importance to you?  If I don't vote, then yours counts for more.  I no longer want to vote and to contribute to a system where, no matter who I vote for, I will pay more in taxes and be less free.

I don't like the budgets proposed by the republicans because none of them will balance the budget inside of ten years.  But at least they are trying.

I don't see how the budget will ever be balanced, when spending on Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, and Unemployment alone exceeds the total revenues of the government.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/Historicals  (tables 1.1 & 3.1)

A few points in your last reply give me hope that you are willing to see the results and reconsider your thoughts if they are proven to be wrong.  This reply of mine is not a persuasive as I would like it to be.  I encourage you to look at the results of Obamacare over time.  When you see its flaws, consider if you still want to support it.  And don't blame republicans for its problems; not one voted for it.

My compliments on your lack of insults.  Insults are easy to throw around, but if you and I stop using them we will have slightly improved internet discourse.

This post from my blog may be of some interest: http://spootville.blogspot.com/2013/01/the-democrats-plan-for-balancing-budget.html

 ***

There were more replies, but that was enough for today.

Huffington Post Comments, 1/31/2013

I am awaiting some replies, but in the meantime take note of the following comments to this article.


The following are parts of some comments:

The Mask

If Bush had been treated as badly by the left as Obama has been by the right, you can rest assured that martial law would have been declared by 2002 for all America because "you're either for us or against us"

Michmod

We didn't go after Bush personally, we went after his policies.

Two comments earlier:

strothersgirl03

The only sixty books Bush might have read, would have been picture books. The man is a dolt.

Three comments after Michmod:

BJW Nashe

Bush read over sixty books in 2006? I didn't know Dr. Seuss wrote that many...  

How do they write this stuff and keep a straight face?

"We didn't go after Bush personally..." ==> "The man is a dolt."

The Democrats' Plan for Balancing the Budget

I am getting weary of talking about the national debt and deficit.  But until these issues are resolved we will have political, economical, and other issues affecting our everyday lives.

We already know that the democrats do not concern themselves with these problems.

They do, however, take the time to criticize any attempt made by republicans to fix these problems.  Anything you hear from the left about the budget will, almost invariably, be about how bad a particular republican budget balancing plan is.  This may be a good political strategy for them.  They can blame republicans for wanting to cut spending and they present nothing for the republicans to attack.

When I attempted to determine what the democrats' plan to balance the budget is, the only replies that approximated a response were:

• "I already answered that."
• "Tax the Rich of course!"

Despite the lack of helpfulness from those commenters, we know that whenever the democrats admit to what they want to do to balance the budget, they will point out that they want to tax the rich, and cut military spending.

Let's try their plan and see what those numbers look like.

The White House has a page to list the "Historical Tables" for the financial information of the United States. 

Once again I will be using 2011 numbers because that is the most recent year for which the numbers are not estimates.

Table 1.1 shows the total revenues and expenditures (rounded to the nearest billion):

2011 total receipts: $2,303 billion
2011 total outlays: $3,603 billion
2011 total deficit: $1,300 billion

Now I will subtract military spending from these numbers, and then divide the remainder of the deficit by the number of "the rich" to see how much they each need to pay as their "fair share."  Note that the amount "the rich"needs to pay will be in addition to what they already pay to the government (their current payments are already included in the "total receipts").

I have never heard how much the democrats would like to cut military spending. 
Let's see what the numbers look like if we cut 100% of military spending.

2011 spending on "National Defense" (table 3.1): $705 billion

I considered removing all "veteran's benefits" too, but I decided that while the democrats don't like the military, they do not oppose paying for their benefits. ($127 billion, incidentally)

Subtract all military spending from the total budget and we get the following numbers:

2011 total receipts: $2,303 billion
2011 total outlays (minus national defense): $2,898 billion
2011 total deficit (minus national defense): $595 billion

By ending military spending we have halved the deficit.  (A fine point to note next time you talk to a democrat who wants to cut military spending: By eliminating 100% of military spending the federal deficit would still be about $200 billion more than the largest deficit under President Bush, which included military spending. table 1.1)

Now let's divide the amount of the new deficit amongst "the rich" and see how big of an additional check they need to pay each year in order to balance the budget.

According to the U.S. Census Clock (at the time of this writing) the U.S. has a population of: 315,230,903

How many of us are "the rich"?

We heard from many last year that "the 1%" are the problem.  1% of the U.S. population is 3,152,309 individuals.

Let's divide our new deficit by the number of "the rich":

$595 billion/3,152,309 people = $188,750.53 per each "rich" person.

We can use the democrats' budget plan to balance the budget if we end all military spending and each "rich" person would need to pay $188,750.53 each year in addition to what they already pay in taxes.

(This is, admittedly, a lower number than I expected when I started this post.)

How much does someone in the 1% earn each year?

According to this liberal sounding website (I couldn't find the IRS data.), the annual income needed to hit the following top percent marks are (in 2010):

Top 1%: $380,354
Top 5%: $159,619
Top 10%: $113,799
Top 25%: $67,280
Top 50%: >$33,048

According to this Forbes article the average annual income of the top 1% is $717,000.

According to the Tax Foundation (table 8) the top 1% paid 24.01% for an their average tax rate in 2009 (the last year for which they have data).

If the top 1% are going to go along with the democrats' budget balancing plan, then the numbers will work like this.

Average income: $717,000
Less average tax rate @ 24.01%: $172,152
Net current income: $544,848
Less budget balancing number: $188,750
Net income: $356,098

If we eliminate 100% of military spending and charge the top 1% with balancing the budget, then we will be effectively taxing their income at 50%.

The income tax rate in America has been as high as 90% in the past.

It is mathematically possible to balance the budget using the democrats' plan.

Could such a plan work in practice?

Even I, who despises the government and is very open to the idea of anarcho-capitalism, can appreciate that the government [maybe, perhaps, if you insist...] could exist with some merit to do some things.  That list of things are (thanks to Ayn Rand):

1. Protect citizens from foreigners
2. Protect citizens from each other
3. Provide a means of deciding disputes (courts)

If we eliminate national defense, like it seems democrats want, then how would we achive government objective number 1?

I propose a two part national defense plan:

1. Require all adult men (and now women, it seems) to own a fully automatic rifle, in good condition, and with it be able to hit a specified target with it (Note that fully automatics have been illegal since 1934.)
2. Maintain approximately fifty nuclear ICBMs which shall be pointed at the cities in the countries for whom we conclude are the most threatening

We have heard that during WWII the Japanese considered invading America, but were dissuaded from that idea because many Americans were armed.

Switzerland has been neutral in many wars thanks to its mountainous terrain and the fact that all of its adult citizens own guns and practice with them regularly.

related:

Look at Switzerland, for example. Switzerland has a very relaxed concealed carry law. Half the cantons in the country, you don't need a license, you just carry it. The other half, very easy to get a license.
 

They've had three big multiple-victim public shootings in the last 12 years. All three of those are in the very few buildings where guns aren't allowed in Switzerland.

Not only would this satify government objective 1 (protect us from foreigners), it would also help with objective 2 (protect us from other citizens).

The citizens should, if this is the plan, should be required to own a fully automatic weapon, not a lesser weapon, because if we do not, then we would be at a considerable disadvantage if we were invaded by armies that are armed with fully automatics.

I propose that if we eliminate the military and arm all adults with fully automatic weapons we could successfully be protected from nearly all foreign threats.

Maintaining a few nuclear ICBMs should be enough deterrence to prevent another country from using a WMD against us.

The costs of making sure that everyone owns a fully automatic rifle in good order, and maintaining nuclear weapons would cost more than $0, so I would then propose cutting the equivalent of the cost of these two items from elsewhere in the budget.  This plan starts with doing everything that the democrats want, so them giving up on a bit of something elsewhere should be reasonable.

The democrats should also be agreeable to cutting in a few other places.  This plan so far only balances the budget.  So if we cut say $200 billion from elsewhere in the government, we could pay down our national debt.

We should also look into the fact that doubling the taxes paid by the rich would cause them to leave and pay less in  taxes then they do now.  Like is happening in California.  And in France.  Did I mention that people are leaving California?

My attempt to fully flesh out the democrats' budget plan has a good start, and I will leave it to actual democrats to explain how they plan to force "the rich" to pay an additional $188,000 each.

***

If that is what the democrats' plan to balance the budget, then they should be advocating it.

Why haven't they stated their goal more clearly and plainly?

If you are a democrat and want to balance the budget by eliminating defense spending and taxing the rich, then feel free to copy my start at fleshing out a plan.  I realize that none of you have attempted to do so elsewhere.

***

What if by "cutting military spending" the democrats mean to only cut some defense spending?

How much would each member of the top 1% need to pay, on top of what they already do, to balance the budget if we cut only some, say 1/3, of current national defense spending?

Current numbers:

2011 total receipts: $2,303 billion
2011 total outlays: $3,603 billion
2011 total deficit: $1,300 billion

Numbers after cutting national defense spending by 1/3:

total receipts: $2,303 billion
total outlays: $3,368 billion
total deficits: $1,065 billion

Total deficit divided by 1% of the population:

$1,065 billion / 3,152,309 people = $337,847.59/ person of "the rich"

We could cut 1/3 of military spending and divide the deficit by the number of "the rich" and each of "the rich" would need to pay $337,847 each year in addition to their current taxes in order balance the budget.

Note that the liberal sounding website I linked to earlier says that someone in the top 1% earns at least $380,354 each year, and the new budget balancing payment is added to what they already pay to the government.  This means that the lower end of the top 1% would need to pay about 113% of their annual income to the government in order to balance the budget, if we apply the deficit amount evenly across "the rich".

The average member of the top 1%, earning $717,000 annually, would need to pay about 72% of their annual income to the government.

***

If somebody who reads this is a democrat, would you mind pointing out which option you prefer?

1. Eliminate 100% of national defense spending, tax the 1% at 50%, and require all adults to own and know how to operate a fully automatic weapon. (And cut federal spending a bit elsewhere in order to pay off our debt.)
2. Eliminate 1/3 of national defense spending, and tax the 1% at 72%.  (And cut federal spending a bit elsewhere in order to pay off our debt.)

I notice that whenever we hear about a budget, or other bill, from democrats it includes more government spending.  If we take either budget balancing option above, then that is at current spending levels.  If we spend more, then the rate at which the rich must be taxes will need to go up with the increased spending.  And if we take either option some spending should be cut elsewhere so that we can pay of the national debt.

***

One last note:

I once favored building a big wall, or fence, across the U.S./ Mexican border to prevent illegal immigration.  But the places that have fences across their boarders are there to keep citizens in.  The Soviet Union had a fence to keep its citizens in.  North Korea has a fence to keep its citizens in.

I now oppose building a boarder fences, because if the top tax rate in America goes to 50% or 72%, then many people will want to get out.  (Me included, even if I'm not one of "the rich.)

Huffington Post Comments, 1/23/2013

This week I ask what the democratic plan to balance the budget is.  Do you suppose that I got an answer?

Rosalee Harris

The GOP IS Ridiculous ergo anything that comes from them will be ridiculous 

elTim164

You wouldn't be one of those that first claims that everything your opponents say is ridiculous, and then complains about partisanship and gridlock, would you?  

***
Phed Up

No surprise here...the GOP doesn't believe in math, science or education!  

elTim164

It sure is fun to insult your political opponents!

BTW, what's the democratic plan to balance the budget?  

Phed Up

Tax the Rich of course!  What's the GOP plan?  Starve Grandma and the poor? 

elTim164

[my reply was moderated into oblivion, I responded that spending on entitlements is more than total revenues and gave the whitehouse's stats to prove it.  And I noted that you would need to double all taxes paid to balance the budget.]

***
zogimperator

The thing is, Republicans aren't really serious about these cuts. I mean they say they are, and some of the Tea Party types might even think they are, but they don't generally mean it.

If these guys didn't like it this way, the government would be smaller. There would be less spending.

But when you hear a career politician telling you government is the problem, obviously he's lying. That's like a shoe salesman telling you not to wear shoes.

So what's actually going on?

A long time ago, Republicans decided to flog Democrats as big-spending, big-government types. Largely because they didn't have anything else to complain about. This has gone on for decades, and now it's reached such a pitch that they almost have to do something about it for real.

But they know perfectly well what a disaster it would be if spending actually decreased. They know in addition what would happen to their big defense, energy, and similar contractors.

So instead we're seeing this weird strategic retreat. Republicans will back up a few yards from the precipice, then we'll see this entire kabuki played over again as they pretend-rush to the edge once more.

But they don't intend to go over.  

elTim164

BTW, what's the democratic plan for balancing the budget?  

zogimperator

As far as I'm aware, they're more interested in getting the economy growing again.  

elTim164

How do they plan to do that? With more subsidies to green energy companies that proceed to go bankrupt? Or by taxing the only people capable of hiring more?

At least you admit that they are not interested in balancing the budget. 

zogimperator

Why are you asking me these rhetorical questions?  You already have the answers lined up.  

Or rather the angry declamations, which is what passes for an argument in your head.  

elTim164

So we've come to name calling and insults have we?

"How do the democrats plan to grow the economy," was not rhetorical.

Is there an answer?  

zogimperator

I already answered that.
But it's not even the important question.  It's just the one you think is important.
What matters now is growth.  If we stall the economy, the only way we can pay off our debts is by selling off our patrimony, as in Greece or Ireland.  Those countries may need another thirty years to recover.
We have the largest economy in the world.  We have a massive production capacity, if we choose to put it to work.  If we use the government to create the economic activity we need, as we have often done, or we can pretend it's never been done successfully before.
I'd rather repeat the approach that has led to our success in the past, than try what recently brought several European nations to ruin. 

elTim164

"I already answered that."

Where?

I agree that growth is important, but we've tried stimulus, and we've tried cash for clunkers, and we've tried bailouts for GM, Chrysler and Wall Street. And all we have in return is at least 8% unemployment and pitiful growth.

I'll admit that the democratic policies have worked if by 2016 unemployment is less than, say, 6% and we haven't defaulted.

Will you admit that democratic policies haven't worked if unemployment is still over 7% in 2016 or we default?

 ***
demorick2

 For the thousandth time...We spend 41% of the world's defense expenditures, more than the next 10 countries combined. If we cut the defense budget by 50%, we'd still outspend everyone. We could take those savings, invest them in our decrepit infrastructure, and create new jobs. 

elTim164

National defense spending is $700 billion per year.

The smallest budget deficit under Obama was in 2010 at $1.293 trillion.

The biggest deficit under W was in 2008 at about $450 billion.

We could eliminate 100% of defense spending and the deficit would still be bigger than any of the deficits under W.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/Historicals tables 1.1 and 3.1 

***
SpringBranchConservative

So what's the democrats plan, they haven't had one in almost 4 years. At least the Republicans are trying. You can't believe the do nothing democrats.  

Why Does it Seem So Hard

Deflection is an interesting way to defend the GOP 

elTim164

The article in question says the republican plan is bad, so where's the democratic alternative?

Whenever the republicans come up with a plan the democrats attack it and insult republicans for not spending more.

Where is the democratic plan? At least the republicans have a plan.  

Why Does it Seem So Hard

The articvle is about the GOP planning to do in 10 years what Ryan could not do in 30 years.

An article about the DEMs would be about the DEMs. Or is it important that you ignore the topic and change it to discuss another point?

I suppose it must be really difficult to defend the GOP 'fantasy' and so what else can you do but deflect?

I did notice you suggested that a plan that is mathematically impossible is still a plan but I would hardly call that a compelling endorsement of an impossibility.

BTW are you suggesting that Ryan's budget(s) that increase taxes on the middle class, give tax cuts to the wealthy and increase the debt is something the DEMs would consider? The Senate told the House before they submitted those budgets that it would not pass. But the GOP was more than happy to spend tax payer money so that you would have a nice talking point today! THank the GOP for spending the tax payer money just so you could make your point today.  

elTim164
[copy and paste error: I cannot find the page again, I'm not getting email notifications about comment replies, and many of mine were moderated into oblivion.]

***

I remember why I stopped doing this for a while: copy there, paste here, copy, paste, copy, paste, accidentally close a window, lose work, swear, wait for my comments to be moderated, notice that many disappear despite them being the same as those above, etc.

***

In any case, I asked about a half dozen people what the democratic plan to balance the budget and the only things approximating a response were:

"I already answered that." and "Tax the Rich of course!"

Does anyone have any idea about what the democratic plan is?

If we only tax the rich more, then the rate at which they must be taxed to balance the budget is greater than 100%.

Debating Advice

1. You will not convince the person that you are debating.
2. You might convince a witness to the debate.
3. Name calling and insults from you are unacceptable and will encourage the other side.
4. If you do not get called names and insulted by your opponent, then you are not debating right.
5. Mercilessly attack their arguments, not their person.
6. You demeanor must be polite, cheerful, and in good humor.
7. You should not get mad, for any reason.  
8. Stay positive and stay focused, look for the flaws in their arguments and destroy them with your words.

Arguing Against Opposition Rather Than The Issue

In the post that I posted yesterday, I posted (How many times can I get post into one sentence?) some replies to a comment that I left at the Huffington Post (Answer: 5).  My comment included the stats that I found in this post.  The results of that post were to say that there is a direct correlation for more murders per capita to more gun restrictions.

Naturally some on the left disagree.  The following are two replies that I received to my comment.  I want you to notice that they are arguing against my posting opinion opposite to their own.  They are arguing that my opinion should not be made, not that it is wrong.

ChineseBracelet

Nice blog post you are quoting there. Unfortunately, "Spootville" (for god's sake) makes the classic mistake of confusing correlation with causality.

Besides, are law-abiding gun carriers in those neighboring states actually drawing their guns and chasing off would-be shooters? Do you have any numbers on that?

And: http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/09/090930121512.htm

the-lexicon

ALL studies that report numbers like this are false on their face. FALSE. They are statistically corrupt and the methodology is complete garbage.

You can't compare murder rates to gun laws, state-by-state, and expect it to mean ANYTHING.

the inference here is that concealed carry in a state like NH is CAUSAL to the low murder rate. It's simply false. People carrying guns is not stopping other people from murdering. It's simply not. It's a ridiculous conclusion.

Notice that they are not saying that I am wrong*, they are saying that I should not oppose them.

Another reply that attacks my making an argument, not the argument itself:

natgirrl

Oh please, don't you think that with 20 dead 1st graders, we are far beyond semantics? 

These commenters are not claiming that other countries that have more gun restrictions than the U.S. have less crime (like another commenter did, and who is also wrong, but at least wants to argue the issue rather than me).  They are not comparing other sets of states to show where less gun control has meant more crime.  They are not claiming that gun violence has gone up after concealed carry was allowed (the opposite is true).  They are claiming that my argument is not the one that I should make against them.

They do not want to debate the actual issue, they seem to want to debate weather or not a counter to their claim argument should be made.

This seems to be something that I am noticing more with these comment debates.  They oppose that I oppose them, not my arguments. They want to criticize me and my methods for disagreeing with them rather than criticize my arguments.

***

Arguing that my comment is wrong because I confused correlation with causality could be a legitimate argument.  But here is my reasoning for posting what I did.

Their argument- we need more gun control because more gun control will mean less gun violence

My argument - the places that have more gun control have more murders than the places that have less gun control

I thought that I was directly contradicting the argument of my opponents.

And, oddly enough,  an Atlantic writer agrees with me. (I don't endorse his political  ideas, and this post was actually written before that one.)

*Well, the-lexicon is saying that I am wrong, but he is also calling data (from the U.S. Census Bureau) a "false," "garbage," "study."  So, what does he know?

Huffington Post Comments, 12/16/2012

Me:

Murders per 100,000 citizens:

Illinois (only state without concealed carry) = 8.4
Neighboring states (with concealed carry) = 5.3, 1.3, 2.6

New Hampshire (least restrictive gun control) = 0.9
Neighboring states (with more gun restrictions) = 1.3, 2.0, 3.0, 3.0, 4.0

Does gun control reduce crime?

If by "reduce crime" you mean "increase the number of murders," then yes it does.

http://spootville.blogspot.com/2012/12/does-gun-control-reduce-crime.html

slowdime

gun violence has been dropping the last 6 years straight  

Me

And more people own more guns.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/12/14/gun-sales-2012_n_2303513.html

***
Me

Murders per 100,000 citizens:

Illinois (only state without concealed carry) = 8.4
Neighboring states (with concealed carry) = 5.3, 1.3, 2.6

New Hampshire (least restrictive gun control) = 0.9
Neighboring states (with more gun restrictions) = 1.3, 2.0, 3.0, 3.0, 4.0

Does gun control reduce crime?

If by "reduce crime" you mean "increase the number of murders," then yes it does.

http://spootville.blogspot.com/2012/12/does-gun-control-reduce-crime.html

Romeover

Murders per 100,000 citizens

United States = 4.2
Finland = 2.2
Canada = 1.6
France = 1.1
Spain = 0,8
Iceland = 0.3
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_intentional_homicide_rate

Me

Switzerland, where everyone owns a gun = 0.7
Gun crime in England, where guns are banned, up 35%

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-154307/Gun-crime-soars-35.html

The problem with comparing countries comes from the fact that there are too many variables. Comparing a relatively homogenous country like Spain, Finland, and Iceland to the US which has a varied culture and population is misleading.

My stats compared similar states to each other. There are more murders per capita in Illinois than in Indiana and IL has more restrictive gun laws.

There are more murders per capita in Vermont than in New Hampshire and NH has the least restrictive gun laws in the country and the lowest number of murders per capita in the country.

Compare like place to like place. 

***
Me

Murders per 100,000 citizens:

Illinois (only state without concealed carry) = 8.4
Neighboring states (with concealed carry) = 5.3, 1.3, 2.6

New Hampshire (least restrictive gun control) = 0.9
Neighboring states (with more gun restrictions) = 1.3, 2.0, 3.0, 3.0, 4.0

Does gun control reduce crime?

If by "reduce crime" you mean "increase the number of murders," then yes it does.

http://spootville.blogspot.com/2012/12/does-gun-control-reduce-crime.html

the-lexicon

ALL studies that report numbers like this are false on their face. FALSE. They are statistically corrupt and the methodology is complete garbage.

You can't compare murder rates to gun laws, state-by-state, and expect it to mean ANYTHING.

the inference here is that concealed carry in a state like NH is CAUSAL to the low murder rate. It's simply false. People carrying guns is not stopping other people from murdering. It's simply not. It's a ridiculous conclusion.

Me

All studies that report numbers that are the opposite are false. They are statistically corrupt corrupt and the methodology is complete garbage....

Do you see what I did there (and without all caps)?

It must me nice to able to win an argument merely by declaring all of your opponents' claims to be wrong.

The claim being made by the left is that if we had more restrictive gun laws, we would have fewer gun crimes. The opposite is precisely true.

Is it just a coincidence that the states that have more restrictive gun control also have more murders per capita then their neighbors with less restrictive gun control? 

 Also: the source for my stats was the U.S. Census Bureau.

If you are claiming that a part of the government cannot be trusted, then we will agree. And I will question why you want an entity that cannot be trusted to have more control over our lives.

the-lexicon

I don't know if it's a coincidence... but the correlation between restrictive gun control and murders per capita is specious and does not point to any actual accrued benefit either way.
I'll bet there's a correlation between less restrictive gun control and the number of sunny days in a year, on average.
Meaningful?  you tell me.

nope, you can't put words in my mouth and make me speak them.  I think the government CAN be trusted.  ADDITIONALLY, I think that people who hoard weapons to fight the government are INSANE. 

Me

If your claim is that more gun control will reduce crime, and the data shows the exact opposite, and that still doesn't convince you, then what would?

Would any amount of evidence convince you that gun control makes the world more dangerous?

With just one single exception, the attack on congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords in Tucson in 2011, every public shooting since at least 1950 in the U.S. in which more than three people have been killed has taken place where citizens are not allowed to carry guns.

The CO shooter went out of his way to the one movie theater that bans guns for his attack.

The CT shooter got his guns illegally and went to were guns were not allowed. How would adding one more law, that he would not have cared about, prevented this shooting? 

Why can the government be trusted? Don't those of you on the left complain that the government is too friendly with the 1%? Don't those of you on the left complain that the government can not be trusted on abortion, gay marriage, right to work laws, etc?

We would people that have guns be insane? Because the governments of the world have killed more than 50 million people this century, but only after the citizens were disarmed? See: the Holocaust for the first example 

 ***
Me

Murders per 100,000 citizens:

Illinois (only state without concealed carry) = 8.4
Neighboring states (with concealed carry) = 5.3, 1.3, 2.6

New Hampshire (least restrictive gun control) = 0.9
Neighboring states (with more gun restrictions) = 1.3, 2.0, 3.0, 3.0, 4.0

Does gun control reduce crime?

If by "reduce crime" you mean "increase the number of murders," then yes it does.

http://spootville.blogspot.com/2012/12/does-gun-control-reduce-crime.html

ChineseBracelet

Nice blog post you are quoting there. Unfortunately, "Spootville" (for god's sake) makes the classic mistake of confusing correlation with causality.

Besides, are law-abiding gun carriers in those neighboring states actually drawing their guns and chasing off would-be shooters? Do you have any numbers on that?

And: http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/09/090930121512.htm

Me

Thanks for the compliment for my blog. It is quite nice isn't it. :)

If I made that mistake, then everyone who is calling for gun control to prevent shootings is making the same mistake.

Isn't the claim from the left that: if we had more restrictive gun control, then shootings would not happen, or happen as often?

I don't have the stats for guns saving lives easily accessible. If you want them, then I'd recommend this: http://www.amazon.com/More-Guns-Less-Crime-Understanding/dp/0226493660/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1355687849&sr=8-1&keywords=more+guns+less+crime

Here is a website that lists lives potentially saved by guns. I'd bet that you have not heard about one of them thanks to the media. http://gunssavelives.net/

Here is video of a 71 year old using his gun to save people. Would he have been able to save anyone if he had been unarmed? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wWoLGC-n4i4

The study you linked to has issues. Starting with missing this:

The average number of people killed in mass shootings when stopped by police is 14.3

The average number of people killed in a mass shooting when stopped by a civilian is 2.3.

http://beforeitsnews.com/alternative/2012/12/mass-shootings-stopped-by-citizens-vs-mass-shooting-stopped-by-police-2511412.html

Becoming "The Man"

I've heard about the sixties being a time when lots of young people (allegedly, they did vote for democrats) opposed "the man" telling them what to do and directing their lives.  When I've read and heard quotes from those people some of it sounded a bit conspiratorial.

Although they may have been right about much of what they said.  They opposed wars and we get a new one every few years.  They opposed someone telling them how to live their lives and we get the life of Julia.  They opposed a lack of privacy and they didn't know how good they had it.

The thing is, the children of the sixties were opposed what our government does today, and yet "the man" is now them.  They run the government and are doing what they opposed a few decades ago.

I was reminded of this while reading about the violence of the left and reading about how we have actual video evidence of violence from members of the left and the media is ignoring it.  This too sounds a bit conspiratorial; even though it is true.

My guess is the average American thinks that a lot of the media is biased, but, "surely", they'd think, "the media would not ignore such a story as union thugs inflicting violence upon members of the right.  Videoed violence would be too big to ignore."

And yet that is what is happening.

Complaining about the media is well and good, but our new media sources should take note of what they are covering.

I doubt that the children of the sixties thought that they would become that which they hated...but they have.  And they don't know how, or why.

You can see some of that happening to those of you on the right.  Just look at the comments of the article about how bad the media is.  Aren't we opposed to violence, hate, and name calling?  Look at the comments to that article, and see the hate:

50PercentAmericansStupid

Liberals are the BIGGEST RACISSST. Liberals keep raccissm alive. Liberals keep black folks down to get their vote and make up lies about Conservatives when it is Conservatives that want to lift everyone out of poverty and so to do well. If black folks knew the truth about gay, abortion liberals they all would be in the Republican party!

sdindy47

This is what Obummer has brought to us.  A country full of racist, bullying thugs kept out of the news by the lame stream media.  What a sad state the United States of Omerica is in?

And the comment that was flagged and removed from review came from: "SeamusRmoney, Tea Parties are for little girls with imaginary friends."

Some on the right are name calling, using all caps, and being insulting.  And the comment that was removed came from someone on the left.

 

I share the sentiment of these commenters, but I fear they are becoming their hated, name calling, angry enemies.

The children of the sixties became what they hated; take care that you don't do the same.

Comment Debate Update

On Monday I debated several commenters on the merits of our government.  If by "debated" you mean they called me names and insulted me.

The article these comments are in response to was about how there are a large number of homeless in America.

My first comment:

Me

The government has spent trillions on reducing poverty and yet we still have poor people. That's not surprising when you realize the government is incapable of doing anything good. And yet many of you want this same incompetent government to run your healthcare. I can't imagine why. 

Note that these following links include all of the comments that I got as a reply to the above comment.  Notice that their are nine replies to my comment (including on at the second link) and not one of them responded to my argument that the government is incompetent.  They all attacked me or questioned why I would make such an argument rather than point out why I could be wrong.

Take special note of commenter rothomaha. 

Start at the beginning here. 

Follow up comments here.

Notice that rothomaha has insulted me with every comment, as I have been amused to point out to him/her.

I more fully explained the fact that our government is incompetent by using the subjects picked by commenter rothomaha.  Does the government do anything well?

I then directed rothomaha's attention to that post and he/she has responded in the Huffington Post comments.

Let's have a look:

rothomaha

You, too have a nice day, and please stop being quite so sensitive. There is a vast difference between improving what already exists to make it as good as it can be, and just replacing it with an entirely new system, especially when that new system will benefit the 1% far more than it will the freight-paying public. I should have thought that, with your intelligence and perspicacity you'd have understood what I was saying to refute your original point - it appears we, The Deaf, have been having a dialogue. Peace! 

Me

I am not here to look for insults or name calling.  I am not trying to be sensitive.  What I have done is present an argument: the government is incompetent.  I received nine replies to that comment and not one criticized my argument.  Every single reply that I received criticized me instead.

In every single reply of yours you have criticized me and not my argument.  It took you until your most recent reply to even come close to arguing that my point is wrong.

My argument: The government is incompetent

Your arguments: The government does some things, it would be too difficult to replace, it would benefit the rich too much

Those three points are arguments against my claim, nearly all of the rest of what you have said are the arguments against me personally.

Please read my post that shows that the government is incompetent.  The last three links show that we are better served with the private sector not the public.

http://spootville.blogspot.com/2012/12/does-government-do-anything-well.html

I would be happy to continue if we can restrict the discourse to the arguments not my perceived "sensitivity."