# Democrats outperform Republicans across the board



## tuhaybey (Oct 8, 2014)

Democratic leaders consistently trounce Republicans by pretty much every objective measure of performance.  That is true at the state and federal level and regardless of whether we are talking about the legislative or executive branch.

For example, consider GDP growth by the party of the federal government:



Note that at present, we are on that green column and we're almost exactly on the average of 2.9%.

Or, consider the change in unemployment rate by the party of the president:



Or, the stock market performance by the party of the president:



Not convinced yet?  How about:

Median income of red and blue states
Life expectancy of red and blue states
Gun death rates in red and blue states
Graduate degrees per capita in red and blue states
GDP growth relative to world GDP growth
Change in personal income by party of president
Patents filed per capita of red and blue states
Top 20 years for GDP growth since 1930 by party
Etc., etc., etc.

So, what I am wondering is why anybody votes Republican.  Are Republicans just looking at different measures of success?  If so, please post them.  Or, is the issue that Republicans just aren't looking at which party's policies work out better at all?


----------



## Moonglow (Oct 8, 2014)

shh, don't tell the right, they will just deny it...


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Oct 8, 2014)

It's true, when you look at food stamps, number of people leaving the labor force, record debt and deficits, the Dems own it


----------



## Moonglow (Oct 8, 2014)

It's not like the GOP leaders ever spend anything over budget when in control...


----------



## tuhaybey (Oct 8, 2014)

CrusaderFrank said:


> It's true, when you look at food stamps, number of people leaving the labor force, record debt and deficits, the Dems own it


The deficit has been reduced by more than a trillion dollars in the past few years, so not sure where you're going with that one.  At present, it is pretty clearly a non-issue.

More people on food stamps is a good thing.  Making sure everybody has enough to eat and helping the poor get their heads above water is both a moral imperative and part of the reason that the economy performs better under Democrats- because we make it easier to get out of poverty.

The labor participation rate is mostly just a misunderstanding on the right.  That is just the percentage of people between 16 and 65 years old who are working.  So, everybody who is in school and everybody who retires before 65 are "non-participating."  Those are the two main reasons that the rate has been steadily falling since the 1990s- baby boomers are retiring and younger people are staying in school longer.  The assumption that it means people just giving up or something is false.  Only a couple/few percent of the non-participating people are actually in that camp.


----------



## sameech (Oct 8, 2014)

tuhaybey said:


> The deficit has been reduced by more than a trillion dollars in the past few years, so not sure where you're going with that one.  At present, it is pretty clearly a non-issue.



The deficit is shrinking due to GOP austerity and Obama playing Russian Roulette by converting all bonds that come due and payable into short term lower interest payment bonds at the expense of driving up longer term interest on the bonds when we allegedly go back to 30 year treasuries on them.  The growing debt will become an increasing problem.  Only a hack would think otherwise.




tuhaybey said:


> More people on food stamps is a good thing.  Making sure everybody has enough to eat and helping the poor get their heads above water is both a moral imperative and part of the reason that the economy performs better under Democrats- because we make it easier to get out of poverty.



democrats do not make it easier for people to get out of poverty.  I have no problem with people who need food stamps getting them, but things like the earned Income Tax Credit reinforces poverty by discouraging people to break through the low-wage blue collar ceiling EITC creates.    



tuhaybey said:


> The labor participation rate is mostly just a misunderstanding on the right.  That is just the percentage of people between 16 and 65 years old who are working.  So, everybody who is in school and everybody who retires before 65 are "non-participating."  Those are the two main reasons that the rate has been steadily falling since the 1990s- baby boomers are retiring and younger people are staying in school longer.  The assumption that it means people just giving up or something is false.  Only a couple/few percent of the non-participating people are actually in that camp.



From what I have read, seniors are staying in the workplace longer.  It is the failure of people to initially enter the workforce at younger age brackets which is the culprit.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Oct 8, 2014)

tuhaybey said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > It's true, when you look at food stamps, number of people leaving the labor force, record debt and deficits, the Dems own it
> ...




The deficit has been reduced....wow. that's an amazing. The deficit has been reduced because it was actually greater than an entire Reagan budget..

More people on food stamps is a good thing....uh huh, sure it is. We have an unbridgeable gap. You're a Communist and I'm not.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Oct 8, 2014)

Moonglow said:


> It's not like the GOP leaders ever spend anything over budget when in control...



The GOP Sucks, absolutely fucking useless

Democrats are just destructive


----------



## rdean (Oct 8, 2014)

Republicans don't want the "elite".  They hate smart people.


----------



## tuhaybey (Oct 8, 2014)

CrusaderFrank said:


> You're a Communist and I'm not.



At least try to talk like a grown up.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Oct 8, 2014)

rdean said:


> Republicans don't want the "elite".  They hate smart people.



Yes, Deany, we're intimidate by your smarts


----------



## tuhaybey (Oct 8, 2014)

sameech said:


> The deficit is shrinking due to GOP austerity



No, the sequester, for example, appears to actually be increasing the deficit.  The reason the deficit is falling is almost entirely to expiration of the Bush tax cuts for the rich and the economic growth.



sameech said:


> The growing debt will become an increasing problem.  Only a hack would think otherwise.



No, not really.  At present, service on the debt eats up about 1% of our GDP.  That isn't nothing, but it isn't a crisis either.  The idle speculation that maybe interest rates will go up is just speculation, but even if they did, it isn't like suddenly it would become 4% of GDP or something, it would become like 1.2% of GDP...  Don't get me wrong, I would like to start paying down the debt.  I'd raise taxes on the rich and corporations to do it.  But it isn't a crisiis or something.



sameech said:


> democrats do not make it easier for people to get out of poverty.  I have no problem with people who need food stamps getting them, but things like the earned Income Tax Credit reinforces poverty by discouraging people to break through the low-wage blue collar ceiling EITC creates.



EITC does not create a ceiling.  It very slowly tapers off as your income goes up.  There is no situation where you would lose a significant fraction of additional income you make to the EITC dropping off.



sameech said:


> From what I have read, seniors are staying in the workplace longer.  It is the failure of people to initially enter the workforce at younger age brackets which is the culprit.



Generally speaking, seniors are staying in the workplace longer.  That's a long term trend over the past 5 decades or so.  But, there are also way more seniors now than there were 20 years ago.  The net effect is a higher percentage of the under-65 age that is retired at present.

Yeah, recent college grads are having some trouble getting work.  At least the ones that graduated right during the recession.  That said, a lot of what often gets presented as young people "not entering the workforce" is really more young people staying in school longer, which is a very good thing.


----------



## sameech (Oct 8, 2014)

tuhaybey said:


> No, not really.  At present, service on the debt eats up about 1% of our GDP.  That isn't nothing, but it isn't a crisis either.  The idle speculation that maybe interest rates will go up is just speculation, but even if they did, it isn't like suddenly it would become 4% of GDP or something, it would become like 1.2% of GDP...  Don't get me wrong, I would like to start paying down the debt.  I'd raise taxes on the rich and corporations to do it.  But it isn't a crisiis or something.



It has nothing to do with a % of GDP.  It has to do with a growing percentage of federal revenue, thereby decreasing discretionary spending.    




tuhaybey said:


> EITC does not create a ceiling.  It very slowly tapers off as your income goes up.  There is no situation where you would lose a significant fraction of additional income you make to the EITC dropping off.



Very slowly?  LOL.  Once you cross minimum wage your "very slowly" is 21 cents of every dollar they earn in excess of about $1K a month.




tuhaybey said:


> Yeah, recent college grads are having some trouble getting work.  At least the ones that graduated right during the recession.  That said, a lot of what often gets presented as young people "not entering the workforce" is really more young people staying in school longer, which is a very good thing.



Going to grad school is a good thing.  Taking 6-7 years to get a 4 year degree is not a very good thing.  People hiding out from the real world by delaying their graduation is a very bad thing.


----------



## tuhaybey (Oct 8, 2014)

sameech said:


> It has nothing to do with a % of GDP.  It has to do with a growing percentage of federal revenue, thereby decreasing discretionary spending.



I don't see how thinking of it as a percentage of federal revenue leads to any different conclusions that thinking of it as a percentage of GDP.  Federal revenue is just the portion of GDP that we chose to dedicate to the public sector.  We can change that number any time we want.



sameech said:


> Very slowly?  LOL.  Once you cross minimum wage your "very slowly" is 21 cents of every dollar they earn in excess of about $1K a month.



That is not my understanding at all.  Depending on how big your household is, some people get EITC all the way up to around $40k/year and it isn't a huge amount of money to start with, so I don't see how it could drop off quickly and still last up to $40k.  Do you have a link to a chart or something?



sameech said:


> Going to grad school is a good thing.  Taking 6-7 years to get a 4 year degree is not a very good thing.  People hiding out from the real world by delaying their graduation is a very bad thing.



The increase in the amount of education people get has been going on for like 100 years.  It isn't about people taking too long to graduate or something.  All the stats about the percentage of the population that has various types of degrees all steadily go up and have for a very long time.  Since the dawn of human history really, but most notably in the past 100 years or so.


----------



## sameech (Oct 8, 2014)

tuhaybey said:


> I don't see how thinking of it as a percentage of federal revenue leads to any different conclusions that thinking of it as a percentage of GDP.  Federal revenue is just the portion of GDP that we chose to dedicate to the public sector.  We can change that number any time we want.



Well, that is a very Marxist attitude.  Ranks second only to the MMT idiots who think we should just print trillion dollar bills



tuhaybey said:


> That is not my understanding at all.  Depending on how big your household is, some people get EITC all the way up to around $40k/year and it isn't a huge amount of money to start with, so I don't see how it could drop off quickly and still last up to $40k.  Do you have a link to a chart or something?




What is the EITC 

The Earned Income Tax Credit Raises Employment




tuhaybey said:


> The increase in the amount of education people get has been going on for like 100 years.  It isn't about people taking too long to graduate or something.  All the stats about the percentage of the population that has various types of degrees all steadily go up and have for a very long time.  Since the dawn of human history really, but most notably in the past 100 years or so.



This is not about 100 years.  It is about declining labor force participation in the last decade.


----------



## tuhaybey (Oct 9, 2014)

sameech said:


> Well, that is a very Marxist attitude.  Ranks second only to the MMT idiots who think we should just print trillion dollar bills



Marxist?  It just seems like an obvious statement of fact that in a democracy the people decide how much of our GDP to pool through taxation.



sameech said:


> What is the EITC
> 
> The Earned Income Tax Credit Raises Employment



Those both seem to support or at least not contradict, what I said.  The second one notes that it starts dropping off at minimum wage and isn't all the way gone until you hit $35k for a family of 4.  I'm not denying that it drops off.  Of course it has to.  I pointed out that it drops off so slowly that it does not actually create a meaningful disincentive.



sameech said:


> This is not about 100 years.  It is about declining labor force participation in the last decade.



Well, I think I addressed that concern- its people retiring in larger numbers because of the baby boomers and people staying in school longer.


----------



## mudwhistle (Oct 9, 2014)

tuhaybey said:


> Democratic leaders consistently trounce Republicans by pretty much every objective measure of performance.  That is true at the state and federal level and regardless of whether we are talking about the legislative or executive branch.
> 
> For example, consider GDP growth by the party of the federal government:
> 
> ...




Blah blah dog:


----------



## tuhaybey (Oct 9, 2014)

mudwhistle said:


> Blah blah



So basically, this-



tuhaybey said:


> Republicans just aren't looking at which party's policies work out better at all?



Right?


----------



## tuhaybey (Oct 9, 2014)

rdean said:


> Republicans don't want the "elite".  They hate smart people.


I have to admit, there does seem to be a bit of a theme going.  They don't want to fund education and are constantly railing against teachers, they aren't too fond of science, they talk about ivy league universities with a tone of disgust, they're generally suspicious of complicated explanations for things...  There is some kind of emotional response that provides a common thread there that isn't pretty.


----------



## rdean (Oct 9, 2014)

CrusaderFrank said:


> rdean said:
> 
> 
> > Republicans don't want the "elite".  They hate smart people.
> ...


Lack of knowing anything has never intimidated Republicans.  It's both part of their charm and why they fail.


----------



## rdean (Oct 9, 2014)

tuhaybey said:


> rdean said:
> 
> 
> > Republicans don't want the "elite".  They hate smart people.
> ...



Yet they insist all knowledge comes from the right wing.  I don't get it.


----------



## CowboyTed (Oct 9, 2014)

tuhaybey said:


> rdean said:
> 
> 
> > Republicans don't want the "elite".  They hate smart people.
> ...


Thats a three line answer... Do you expect them to concentrate that long?


----------



## whitehall (Oct 9, 2014)

In case the radical socialist fringe of the democrat party isn't aware, the DOW Jones indicates corporate wealth and the freaking hypocrites hate corporations. In a free society the DOW will always grow regardless of temporary socialist democrat leadership. Historically the GDP grew under democrat leadership during the 20th century because mostly democrats were in power and war is good for business and all the conflicts during the bloody 20th century started during democrat administrations. Employment statistics can be skewed easily by factoring government jobs but government jobs do not grow the economy and neither do minimum wage jobs. It's ironic that Black unemployment is in double digits while a (half) Black president is in office.


----------



## tuhaybey (Oct 9, 2014)

whitehall said:


> In case the radical socialist fringe of the democrat party isn't aware, the DOW Jones indicates corporate wealth and the freaking hypocrites hate corporations. In a free society the DOW will always grow regardless of temporary socialist democrat leadership. Historically the GDP grew under democrat leadership during the 20th century because mostly democrats were in power and war is good for business and all the conflicts during the bloody 20th century started during democrat administrations. Employment statistics can be skewed easily by factoring government jobs but government jobs do not grow the economy and neither do minimum wage jobs. It's ironic that Black unemployment is in double digits while a (half) Black president is in office.



This just strikes me as a bunch of excuses.  We're looking at 80 years of data in some of those examples above...  Your position is that it is just a coincidence that the Democrats did better consistently for 80 years?


----------



## LoneLaugher (Oct 10, 2014)

CrusaderFrank said:


> rdean said:
> 
> 
> > Republicans don't want the "elite".  They hate smart people.
> ...



Perfect! Just perfect.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Oct 10, 2014)

LoneLaugher said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > rdean said:
> ...



It makes me so happy that my typo can brighten your day.


----------



## LoneLaugher (Oct 10, 2014)

CrusaderFrank said:


> LoneLaugher said:
> 
> 
> > CrusaderFrank said:
> ...



Yeah....it stands out when you are calling someone else stupid.


----------



## tuhaybey (Oct 12, 2014)

So just to be clear, no Republican has managed to come up with a single objective measure that Republicans perform better on or refute the fact that Democrats perform better on all the measures in the OP.  So doesn't that mean that it is irrational to vote Republican?  If they're bad at running the country, why have them run the country?


----------



## Wry Catcher (Oct 12, 2014)

CrusaderFrank said:


> It's true, when you look at food stamps, number of people leaving the labor force, record debt and deficits, the Dems own it



Your word is no good and your opinion is worthless sans evidence.  Reagan, your Messiah, and GWB (who you've tossed under the bus, and now try to rehab by blaming Obama for the missteps of the past) were not fiscally conservative, i.e. fiscally responsible.

Since your side of the aisle claimed government cannot create jobs, and blame Obama for a job less recovery one might easily conclude your side is hypocritical and dishonest. That It is business and industry who are the only job creators is as false as the claims by the GOP that is it the party of the big tent, has compassion, and puts country first. 

Only the dumbest of the dumb will continue to claim the GOP can govern effectively, efficiently and with equality for all.  Thus we can expect them to post red herrings, tu quoque, and straw men.


----------



## Delta4Embassy (Oct 12, 2014)

Republicans have better sex, more orgasms, etc. though. Seems counterintuitive until you consider Republicans make sex so illicit and taboo it's no wonder then they're eager little beavers in bed.


----------



## Wry Catcher (Oct 12, 2014)

whitehall said:


> In case the radical socialist fringe of the democrat party isn't aware, the DOW Jones indicates corporate wealth and the freaking hypocrites hate corporations. In a free society the DOW will always grow regardless of temporary socialist democrat leadership. Historically the GDP grew under democrat leadership during the 20th century because mostly democrats were in power and war is good for business and all the conflicts during the bloody 20th century started during democrat administrations. Employment statistics can be skewed easily by factoring government jobs but government jobs do not grow the economy and neither do minimum wage jobs. It's ironic that Black unemployment is in double digits while a (half) Black president is in office.



In one paragraph ^^^ we can see mass ignorance, dishonesty and magically thinking (thinking?) as well as how the Crazy New Right propaganda is so effective that dumb people never question the dogma promulgated by their leadership, many of whom lead from the airways/cable, when not on their way to their bank in the Cayman Islands.

1.  Government employees buy homes, cars, insurance; they take vacations, invest in stocks and bonds, buy lunches, dinners, clothing and hire plumbers, gardners, attorney's and day care operators.

2.  Government projects hire private sector contractors to complete taxpayer funded projects which makes roads, bridges, tunnels and public transportation safer and more efficient.

3.  A radical socialist would not allow a stock market or allow business and industry to operate as a private for profit entity, they would be owned by the radical socialist government.

4.  I doubt anyone with any knowledge of the history of the 20th century buys your theory that Democrats are war mongers, because war is good for business.  LBJ escalated the Vietnam War via the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution which passed the H. of Rep. 414 - 0 and the Senate 88-2 (both no votes were by Democrats).  Nixon ran on "I have a Plan" (to end the war in Vietnam) during the 1968 Campaign, and yet he escalated the war which didn't end until our defeat SEVEN years later.


----------



## Wry Catcher (Oct 12, 2014)

Let's look at how many voted for the invasion of Iraq, shall we!:

Iraq Resolution - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

Seems Democrats are not the war mongers some make them out to be; oh, and see which party votes in lockstep and which party members vote their conscious.


----------



## tuhaybey (Oct 12, 2014)

Delta4Embassy said:


> Republicans have better sex, more orgasms, etc. though. Seems counterintuitive until you consider Republicans make sex so illicit and taboo it's no wonder then they're eager little beavers in bed.


LOL


----------



## tuhaybey (Oct 12, 2014)

Wry Catcher said:


> Let's look at how many voted for the invasion of Iraq, shall we!:
> 
> Iraq Resolution - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia
> 
> Seems Democrats are not the war mongers some make them out to be; oh, and see which party votes in lockstep and which party members vote their conscious.


The Democrats definitely made a major mistake there- they believed that no President of the United States, regardless of which party they were in, would ever lie to Congress or the American People to start a war he had no reason to start.


----------



## Delta4Embassy (Oct 12, 2014)

tuhaybey said:


> Delta4Embassy said:
> 
> 
> > Republicans have better sex, more orgasms, etc. though. Seems counterintuitive until you consider Republicans make sex so illicit and taboo it's no wonder then they're eager little beavers in bed.
> ...



Experience bears this out, at least from among repressed Christian girlfriends. They're so repressed sexually, when they meet me, someone completely open and frank about sex, they go nuts. 

Forget bars, want a freak to play with meet em at church. More conservative and hardcore the better.


----------



## Zander (Oct 12, 2014)

Only ignorant cu*nts believe that political parties control the economy.


----------



## EconChick (Oct 12, 2014)

tuhaybey said:


> Democratic leaders consistently trounce Republicans by pretty much every objective measure of performance.  That is true at the state and federal level and regardless of whether we are talking about the legislative or executive branch.
> 
> For example, consider GDP growth by the party of the federal government:
> 
> ...



And what far left source did you dig all that up from?

It's always fun watching libs twist statistics.


----------



## tuhaybey (Oct 12, 2014)

Zander said:


> Only ignorant cu*nts believe that political parties control the economy.



So your take is that it is just a really big coincidence?  80 years of data looking at a laundry list of different measures, we nearly always perform better under Democrats, and you figure that's just a freak coincidence?

That doesn't seem very plausible.


----------



## tuhaybey (Oct 12, 2014)

EconChick said:


> And what far left source did you dig all that up from?
> 
> It's always fun watching libs twist statistics.



The site lists the sources for each one.  Mostly the BEA and BLS it looks like.


----------



## Zander (Oct 12, 2014)

tuhaybey said:


> Zander said:
> 
> 
> > Only ignorant cu*nts believe that political parties control the economy.
> ...





Correlation does not mean CAUSATION.  You're a Kool-Aid drinker.


----------



## Vigilante (Oct 12, 2014)




----------



## tuhaybey (Oct 12, 2014)

Zander said:


> Correlation does not mean CAUSATION.  You're a Kool-Aid drinker.



First off, you know where that line came from, right?  It was popularized by the lobbyists that were arguing that smoking doesn't cause cancer.

It doesn't really mean what you think it means.  Most evidence we all rely on every day is correlation.  If you walk outside when it is raining and you get wet, and that happens every time it is raining for 20 times in a row, you learn that rain makes you wet.  You aren't doing some sort of strange causal study to figure that you, you're just noting that rain correlates strongly with getting wet.  That's true of like 99.9% of the things we know about the world.

Now, that doesn't mean that every correlation between A and B prove that A and B are related.  How strongly a correlation supports the premise that A is related to B depends on how strong the correlation is.  How big the data set is and how far apart A and B's results are tell you how strong the indication of a relationship is.  In this case, we have 80 years of data and almost every Democrat outperforms almost every Republican.  No unified Republican government has ever even gotten as much GDP growth as the average unified Democratic government.  Never once.  And, we're not just talking about one measure, we're talking about many different stats that all correlate to the same start degree.

So, again, are you contending that it is just a really big coincidence?  That is the question you ask yourself when trying to figure out how good correlation is as evidence- how likely is it that something like this would just happen randomly?  Go ahead, think it through.


----------



## tuhaybey (Oct 12, 2014)

Vigilante said:


>



So Democrats are dumb because the candidates they pick always do well and Republicans are smart because they didn't even realize that the candidates they pick always do poorly?


----------



## Dont Taz Me Bro (Oct 12, 2014)

tuhaybey said:


> Democratic leaders consistently trounce Republicans by pretty much every objective measure of performance.  That is true at the state and federal level and regardless of whether we are talking about the legislative or executive branch.



So why are you about to lose the Senate?


----------



## Vigilante (Oct 12, 2014)

tuhaybey said:


> Vigilante said:
> 
> 
> >
> ...



Oh, is that why Nancy Piglosi isn't Speaker of the House, and Republicans now control it?????


----------



## Zander (Oct 13, 2014)

tuhaybey said:


> Zander said:
> 
> 
> > Correlation does not mean CAUSATION.  You're a Kool-Aid drinker.
> ...



You're an idiot. Science, not lobbyists, gave us causation and correlation. You are also suffering from a severe case of confirmation bias.  


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Wry Catcher (Oct 13, 2014)

EconChick said:


> tuhaybey said:
> 
> 
> > Democratic leaders consistently trounce Republicans by pretty much every objective measure of performance.  That is true at the state and federal level and regardless of whether we are talking about the legislative or executive branch.
> ...



It's much more fun reading posts from EC, words sans substance.  The challenge was in the form of a question:  "Are Republicans just looking at different measures of success" and was ignored; a very telling omission.

Q.  How does one spell phony?
A.  E C O N C H I C


----------



## Wry Catcher (Oct 13, 2014)

Vigilante said:


> tuhaybey said:
> 
> 
> > Vigilante said:
> ...



Who are what made you into the dirt bag you've become?  You are repulsive.


----------



## Wry Catcher (Oct 13, 2014)

Dont Taz Me Bro said:


> tuhaybey said:
> 
> 
> > Democratic leaders consistently trounce Republicans by pretty much every objective measure of performance.  That is true at the state and federal level and regardless of whether we are talking about the legislative or executive branch.
> ...



One issue true believers in Red States.  People who live in Tornado Alley rarely act in their own best interest.  Is it the water, or inbreeding?


----------



## Dont Taz Me Bro (Oct 13, 2014)

Wry Catcher said:


> Dont Taz Me Bro said:
> 
> 
> > tuhaybey said:
> ...



But people in places like New York and California who vote themselves out of being able to afford to live there are making better decisions?


----------



## Vigilante (Oct 13, 2014)

Wry Catcher said:


> Vigilante said:
> 
> 
> > tuhaybey said:
> ...



Now you're going to make me blush!  I might have to add this to my signature! BTW, it's who OR what, but that just gave me the chuckles, thinking how correct I am about calling you subversives 2 digit IQ'd freaks! Too bad you aren't THIS pretty, might forgive your stupidity!


----------



## Wry Catcher (Oct 13, 2014)

Dont Taz Me Bro said:


> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> > Dont Taz Me Bro said:
> ...



I can't speak for New York, but in California our state was held hostage by the GOP and the 2/3 requirement to fix what was broken.  The people of CA became fed up with the inability of government to govern and changed the inequality which is inherent in the 2/3 requirement by passing Prop. 25 in 2010:

*"California Proposition 25, the Majority Vote for the Legislature to Pass the Budget Act*, was on theNovember 2, 2010 ballot in California as an initiated constitutional amendment, where it was *approved.*
"Proposition 25 ends the previous requirement in the state that two-thirds of the members of the California State Legislature had to vote in favor of the state's budget in order for the budget to be enacted. Proposition 25 also requires state legislators to forfeit their pay in years where they have failed to pass a budget in a timely fashion"

Seems to me many of our problems could begin to be repaired if the Congress could be convinced to be responsible.  Being fiscally conservative is not necessarily being fiscally responsible.


----------



## rdean (Oct 13, 2014)

Delta4Embassy said:


> Republicans have better sex, more orgasms, etc. though. Seems counterintuitive until you consider Republicans make sex so illicit and taboo it's no wonder then they're eager little beavers in bed.



Only the men.  The women are tired of missionary.  They go looking for adventurous liberals.


----------



## tuhaybey (Oct 13, 2014)

Dont Taz Me Bro said:


> So why are you about to lose the Senate?



If we lose it, it will be because Republican voters aren't performing their civic duty to vote intelligently.


----------



## tuhaybey (Oct 13, 2014)

Zander said:


> You're an idiot. Science, not lobbyists, gave us causation and correlation. You are also suffering from a severe case of confirmation bias.



I addressed your point, so if you don't have a counter argument, I guess that's that.


----------



## tuhaybey (Oct 13, 2014)

Dont Taz Me Bro said:


> But people in places like New York and California who vote themselves out of being able to afford to live there are making better decisions?



Actually, people in blue states have far, far, more surplus income- Median Income Compared to Support for Obama

You mentioned CA, for example.  People living in CA have a median household income (the chart I linked to is per-person income, not household) $20k/year higher than the median for red states.  Somebody making $60k in CA only pays $189/year more in state taxes than somebody making $60k in Texas does....


----------



## Zander (Oct 13, 2014)

tuhaybey said:


> Zander said:
> 
> 
> > You're an idiot. Science, not lobbyists, gave us causation and correlation. You are also suffering from a severe case of confirmation bias.
> ...



You addressed my point  with a lie. 

You lack the ability to discern truth from propaganda, I guess that's that.


----------



## tuhaybey (Oct 13, 2014)

Zander said:


> You addressed my point  with a lie.
> 
> You lack the ability to discern truth from propaganda, I guess that's that.



Just blurting out that you think I'm wrong doesn't answer my argument.  If you're unable to refute my argument, then the next step is to figure out where you got mixed up, not to continue blurting out substanceless denials of the conclusion of my argument.


----------



## tuhaybey (Oct 13, 2014)

It has been 5 days now and still not a single Republican has come up with even one measure by which Republican leaders perform better.  Not one.


----------



## Zander (Oct 13, 2014)

tuhaybey said:


> Zander said:
> 
> 
> > You addressed my point  with a lie.
> ...



Just blurting out that "lobbyists" gave us causation and correlation makes you a moron. You have no argument to refute.


----------



## tuhaybey (Oct 13, 2014)

Zander said:


> Just blurting out that "lobbyists" gave us causation and correlation makes you a moron. You have no argument to refute.



Doesn't seem like you read my post.  Give it another go.


----------



## Wry Catcher (Oct 13, 2014)

tuhaybey said:


> Zander said:
> 
> 
> > Just blurting out that "lobbyists" gave us causation and correlation makes you a moron. You have no argument to refute.
> ...



Having a debate with Zander or Rabbi or CrusaderFrank is defined as mental masturbation without a climax.


----------



## Zander (Oct 13, 2014)

tuhaybey said:


> Zander said:
> 
> 
> > Just blurting out that "lobbyists" gave us causation and correlation makes you a moron. You have no argument to refute.
> ...



These are all "correlated". Start refuting......







...


----------



## tuhaybey (Oct 13, 2014)

Zander said:


> These are all "correlated". Start refuting......



Again, virtually all evidence is correlation.  For example, if the FDA needs to decide if a new drug will cause cancer, it looks at how cancer correlates to taking the drug.  Correlation is not unscientific or something, that is what most of science is- looking for strong correlations.

Now, most definitely, you can have situations where an external factor affects both.  For example, wearing gloves doesn't make you wear a hat even though the correlate strongly (cold makes you both wear a hat and wear gloves).  That is called a confounding factor.  So far, nobody in this thread has come up with a suggestion of a confounding factor that would cause Democrats to have so much better numbers, but if you have one that you can document, that would be a legitimate argument.  Just claiming it is a coincidence with no basis for your claim, on the other hand, is not a real argument.

Your graphs rely on two tricks.  First, they are just totally unrelated things and there are an infinite number of unrelated things, so of course you can find two that correlate.  That isn't the case with the data I showed you in the OP.  Those aren't like tiny unrelated factors among thousands, those are every major economic indicator correlated to who is running the government.  For example, say that 1 in every 1,000 two random variables correlate fairly closely like that.  If you want to find charts of unrelated things that correlate, you could just look at 1,000 possible correlations and pick the strongest ones even if only 1 in 1,000 correlate.  But in this case, we're looking at the 8 or so most obvious things to look at and all 8 correlate.  Do you see why that makes it so much stronger evidence?

Second, a number of your graphs are just playing a trick by failing to control for population.  All "number of incident" type stats go up as population goes up.  The charts in the OP don't make that mistake.


----------



## Zander (Oct 13, 2014)

tuhaybey said:


> Zander said:
> 
> 
> > These are all "correlated". Start refuting......
> ...




List the specific Democrat  legislation and specific Democrat policies that "caused" the economic performance you ascribe to them.


----------



## tuhaybey (Oct 13, 2014)

Zander said:


> List the specific Democrat  legislation and specific Democrat policies that "caused" the economic performance you ascribe to them.



There are obviously way too many to list in a meaningful way.  The main reasons that Democrats tend to perform so much better are:

1) They favor broader access to opportunity and wealth which gives people more of an incentive to work hard, wastes fewer people's abilities on poverty, and leaves more employees and consumers able to perform their economic role well.

2) They favor stricter regulation of externalities and monopoly and oligopoly, all of which boost economic efficiency.

3) They seek to invest more in the future.

4) They are much less prone to irrational acts that drastically undermine the economy, such as threatening to default, shutting down the government, and so forth.  Democrats tend to be pragmatic and data driven which leads to much better policy than being idealistic and slogan driven.


----------



## Zander (Oct 13, 2014)

tuhaybey said:


> Zander said:
> 
> 
> > List the specific Democrat  legislation and specific Democrat policies that "caused" the economic performance you ascribe to them.
> ...



I didn't ask for a  list of platitudes and wishful thinking. I am looking for concrete, specific policies and laws passed by Democrats that correlate to your premise. Surely you can provide at least a few?


----------



## tuhaybey (Oct 13, 2014)

Zander said:


> I didn't ask for a  list of platitudes and wishful thinking. I am looking for concrete, specific policies and laws passed by Democrats that correlate to your premise. Surely you can provide at least a few?



I mean, the stats I gave you show how their overall portfolio of policies performs economically.  There isn't an objective way to know how much of that performance is tied to which of their policies.  I think the list I gave you should help you understand why their policies are performing so much better though.

Remember, we already know, for a fact, that the Democratic policies are working better economically, so you should be trying to figure out what it is about them that is working better, not whether or not they are working better.  If I give you an example, and you just blurt out Republican reasons why you wouldn't expect it to work better, that won't bring you any closer to understand why it is working better.

But, with those disclaimers, sure, if you think it will help you get your head around it, we can talk about a specific example.  Take antitrust regulation.  The parties differ starkly on how aggressively we should enforce antitrust laws.  Bush2, for example, allowed virtually every merger to go through during his presidency.  Obama, on the other hand, has been blocking any merger that would result in less than 4 major players in an industry.  That's a huge difference between the parties with obvious economic consequences, so lets look there.  Take, for example, the DOJ blocking the merger of AT&T and T-Mobile.  Conservatives pretty much all argued that the DOJ should let it go through, liberals pretty much all argued that it should be blocked, and the Obama DOJ blocked it.  So, consider the economic consequences.

Most notably, capitalism is built on competition.  The whole theory of capitalism is that competition drives prices down and quality up.  The more competition, the more efficient the economy gets.  So, generally, anything that increases competition or prevents a reduction in competition is economically good.  In this specific case, it was especially clear cut because the merger would have reduced the wireless market to only 3 players, all 3 of whom charge exactly the same as the others for every service, which shows they aren't really competing much at all on price.  What's more, T-Mobile was the one exception that actually was trying to undercut the others on price.  That would have been lost had the merger been allowed to go through.  Can you see how that would have economic benefits to block that merger?


----------



## Vigilante (Oct 13, 2014)




----------



## Zander (Oct 13, 2014)

tuhaybey said:


> Zander said:
> 
> 
> > I didn't ask for a  list of platitudes and wishful thinking. I am looking for concrete, specific policies and laws passed by Democrats that correlate to your premise. Surely you can provide at least a few?
> ...



No. I don't see any economic benefits of blocking that merger and you cannot prove any. Fact is  we have dozens of cell service providers in this country. At least 30 facilities based providers and at least 50 virtual providers. That is 80. Not 3 or 4. Apparently you think it is OK to make shit up as you go along?  

Bottom line - you're shooting from the hip and using anecdotes to confirm your own bias. The fact is you have not listed even one democrat passed law that supports your premise. My work here is done.


----------



## tuhaybey (Oct 13, 2014)

Zander said:


> No. I don't see any economic benefits of blocking that merger and you cannot prove any. . . . Bottom line - you're shooting from the hip and using anecdotes to confirm your own bias.



Re-read my two disclaimers in the post you replied to silly.

Anyways, am I correct that your position is basically just that you can't explain why the Democrats do so much better?  That's fine I guess.



Zander said:


> Fact is  we have dozens of cell service providers in this country. At least 30 facilities based providers and at least 50 virtual providers. That is 80. Not 3 or 4. Apparently you think it is OK to make shit up as you go along?



There are only 4 major national carriers.  Those are mostly regional, local carriers or small or prepaid national carriers.  The number of carriers varies by locality.  Some local areas have only 2.  Others have like 15.  But, ultimately the relevant market is national non-prepaid carriers.  What you look at when deciding how to define the market is how readily consumers switch from one company's type of service to another's.  If they are pretty reluctant to make that kind of switch, they're different markets.  Generally speaking, for example, an AT&T customer that has nationwide unlimited calling with no roaming charges isn't going to switch to picking up a new phone every month at a corner store that only has local coverage.  So, the DOJ, correctly I think, defined the market as national non-prepaid carriers.  AT&T, Verizon, Sprint and T-Mobile combined control over 90% of that market.  Had they allowed the merger to go through, 3 companies would have controlled 90% of that market.

See, I think part of the issue on the right is that they approach it the way you did- they try to come up with excuses not to regulate businesses instead of just honestly trying to figure out what approach is economically optimal.  They put a thumb on the "don't regulate" side of the scale and that results in policy that isn't always optimal.  The question is not "can you prove for a fact that this regulation is necessary?", the question is "is it more likely that this regulation will result in more benefits or more costs?"  Say, for example, that you have a regulation that some believe will cause a net loss of $100 and other say it will cause $100 in gains.  The right seems to approach that as "we will only approve this regulation if you can show me that there is a 90% chance it will give us the gains, and only then if nobody in talk radio is against it."  That isn't rational.  The rational thing would be to say "if you can show me that there is a 51% chance that we will have more gains than costs, I will support that regulation regardless of what talk radio says."  That's why the Democrats always do better economically in a nutshell IMO.


----------



## Stephanie (Oct 13, 2014)

Cult members are not pretty. they are more like apes beating their hairy chest with, Democrats are better naa naa na na na


----------



## tuhaybey (Oct 13, 2014)

Stephanie said:


> Cult members are not pretty. they are more like apes beating their hairy chest with, Democrats are better naa naa na na na



I don't get it.  You think it is cultish and ape-like to vote based on which party's policies actually work better?  Instead we should vote, how?  Just at random?

As a side note, you shouldn't exactly call others "cult members" and "apes" if you have an avatar like that lol.


----------



## Stephanie (Oct 13, 2014)

tuhaybey said:


> Stephanie said:
> 
> 
> > Cult members are not pretty. they are more like apes beating their hairy chest with, Democrats are better naa naa na na na
> ...



lol, HOW MUCH does it cost us for their policies to actually work? Start with Detroit and go from there please


----------



## tuhaybey (Oct 13, 2014)

Stephanie said:


> lol, HOW MUCH does it cost us for their policies to actually work?



Not sure exactly what you're asking.  The federal budget doesn't really change much when the parties in control change.  It is more that they focus it on different things.

If you're talking more broadly about costs than just the budget, what the data shows us is that the benefits created by the Democratic policies exceed the costs by a wider margin than they do for Republican policies.


----------



## Stephanie (Oct 13, 2014)

tuhaybey said:


> Stephanie said:
> 
> 
> > lol, HOW MUCH does it cost us for their policies to actually work?
> ...



lol, are you old enough to vote? out of college and working in a job?
just curious


----------



## tuhaybey (Oct 13, 2014)

Stephanie said:


> lol, are you old enough to vote? out of college and working in a job? just curious



Yes... Of course... The thing where tea party types assume liberals must be unemployed is so weird lol.  You understand that we have a way higher median income than you guys do, right?  For example, San Francisco, which is just about 95% Democratic, has a median income $35k/year higher and the average person has 2.5 more years of education than the southern Republican states...  We're rapidly getting to the point where all highly successful people (not counting people who are successful because they inherited something) are liberals.  The 3 richest people in the country all are very liberal, virtually everybody at a top 10 school is liberal, lawyers, doctors, scientists, etc., all liberal...  Yet you guys still just go along assuming that liberals are generally like on welfare or something lol?  Have you never gone to a city or something?  How could you be so out of touch?


----------



## Stephanie (Oct 13, 2014)

tuhaybey said:


> Stephanie said:
> 
> 
> > lol, are you old enough to vote? out of college and working in a job? just curious
> ...



omg, you had to drag the tea party in this? you're brainwashed sheep. You're not convincing anyone here to switch parties with they way you put them on some pedestal . just go vote for the Democrats. no one here cares....


----------



## tuhaybey (Oct 13, 2014)

Stephanie said:


> omg, you had to drag the tea party in this? you're brainwashed sheep. You're not convincing anyone here to switch parties with they way you put them on some pedestal . just go vote for the Democrats. no one here cares....



So basically, you're unable to come up with any objective rational measure that shows Republicans doing better, or even close to as well as Democrats do, so you have no rational reason to vote Republican, but you're just going to keep doing it anyways just because...  But you call *me* a "sheep?"

Looking at the actual facts and trying to make voting decisions based on actual empirical data is not being a sheep, a cult member or an ape.  It is exactly the opposite of those things.


----------



## Zander (Oct 13, 2014)

Still waiting for even one democrat passed law that supports the OP's premise.......


----------



## tuhaybey (Oct 13, 2014)

Zander said:


> Still waiting for even one democrat passed law that supports the OP's premise.......



How would a law support the premise that the Democrats have a better economic track record?  What I think you mean is that you are struggling to understand why it is that the Democrats have a better track record, right?  You seem to think that it isn't in any part because of the more rigorous antitrust enforcement (although you haven't made a very persuasive case).  Ok, that's fine.  Why do you think it is that they perform better?

Regardless, I responded to your post above, so not sure what else I can do for you.


----------



## Wry Catcher (Oct 14, 2014)

tuhaybey said:


> Stephanie said:
> 
> 
> > Cult members are not pretty. they are more like apes beating their hairy chest with, Democrats are better naa naa na na na
> ...



Don't ever confuse any post by Stephanie as a product of thinking.  The more she posts, the more likely it seems the Great Apes are more intelligent than she.


----------



## Dont Taz Me Bro (Oct 14, 2014)

tuhaybey said:


> Dont Taz Me Bro said:
> 
> 
> > So why are you about to lose the Senate?
> ...



So far I've seen little evidence you harbor even a minute amount of intelligence so you really shouldn't be accusing others of being stupid.


----------



## Dont Taz Me Bro (Oct 14, 2014)

Wry Catcher said:


> Dont Taz Me Bro said:
> 
> 
> > Wry Catcher said:
> ...



While that's all very interesting it does nothing to answer my question.


----------



## Dont Taz Me Bro (Oct 14, 2014)

tuhaybey said:


> Dont Taz Me Bro said:
> 
> 
> > But people in places like New York and California who vote themselves out of being able to afford to live there are making better decisions?
> ...



The median income in those states is higher because of the  taxes, fees, and regulations tacked on by government which drives up the cost of living.  I grew up in Massachusetts and I could never afford to buy a house until I moved to South Carolina and there was I able to buy a pretty nice place in an upscale neighborhood for a fraction of what I would have paid for something similar in Boston.


----------



## tuhaybey (Oct 14, 2014)

Dont Taz Me Bro said:


> The median income in those states is higher because of the  taxes, fees, and regulations tacked on by government which drives up the cost of living.  I grew up in Massachusetts and I could never afford to buy a house until I moved to South Carolina and there was I able to buy a pretty nice place in an upscale neighborhood for a fraction of what I would have paid for something similar in Boston.



I guess you missed most of my post.  Again: You mentioned CA, for example. People living in CA have a median household income (the chart I linked to is per-person income, not household) $20k/year higher than the median for red states. Somebody making $60k in CA only pays $189/year more in state taxes than somebody making $60k in Texas does....


----------



## Dont Taz Me Bro (Oct 14, 2014)

tuhaybey said:


> Dont Taz Me Bro said:
> 
> 
> > The median income in those states is higher because of the  taxes, fees, and regulations tacked on by government which drives up the cost of living.  I grew up in Massachusetts and I could never afford to buy a house until I moved to South Carolina and there was I able to buy a pretty nice place in an upscale neighborhood for a fraction of what I would have paid for something similar in Boston.
> ...



That is, of course, patently false, which I didn't even need to look up to know.  

Annual State-Local Tax Burden Ranking FY 2011 Tax Foundation


----------



## tuhaybey (Oct 14, 2014)

Dont Taz Me Bro said:


> That is, of course, patently false, which I didn't even need to look up to know.
> 
> Annual State-Local Tax Burden Ranking FY 2011 Tax Foundation



That source does not contradict what I said at all.  I compared what a person making $60k in CA pays in taxes to what a person making $60k in TX pays.  The difference is $189/year.

Your source says that the average Californian pays 11.4% and the average Texan pays 7.5%.  But remember that the average Texan makes about $20k/year less than the average Californian.  If you hold income constant, they don't differ much.  The reason Californians pay a bit more is because they are much higher up the income brackets.  But, even if you ignored that, 4% of your income is nothing compared to a difference in median income of $20k.  People in CA make around 50% more than people in Texas.  So, you cut off that 4% of what they make in CA, and they're still making 44% more.


----------



## Zander (Oct 14, 2014)

Dont Taz Me Bro said:


> tuhaybey said:
> 
> 
> > Dont Taz Me Bro said:
> ...



The newby thinks he can just pull numbers, statistics, and facts from his rectum. Kinda hard to take this turkey seriously. I've asked him to name one specific policy or law enacted by Democrats to support his premise- his reply? Democrats are more pragmatic and don't rely upon slogans. Hope and change anyone?


----------



## tuhaybey (Oct 14, 2014)

Zander said:


> The newby thinks he can just pull numbers, statistics, and facts from his rectum. Kinda hard to take this turkey seriously. I've asked him to name one specific policy or law enacted by Democrats to support his premise- his reply? Democrats are more pragmatic and don't rely upon slogans. Hope and change anyone?



Pretending you didn't see my reply isn't going to get you anywhere.

Also, you seemed to miss my response to the post you quoted too..

You're kind of struggling in this thread Zander.


----------



## Wry Catcher (Oct 14, 2014)

Dont Taz Me Bro said:


> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> > Dont Taz Me Bro said:
> ...



I understand your confusion, it does take a bit of critically thinking to understand.  First of all, the R's haven't taken over the Senate, and, CA has made a remarkable turnaround under the leadership of Gov. Brown, a majority of Democrats in both houses and the Constitutional Amendment repealing the reactionary requirement that a 2/3 majority is required to pass a budget.

CA and Californians prepare for Earthquakes and Tsunamis, Fires and floods; all but fires are rare events but we know they will occur without warning.  If Californians lived in Tornado Alley our homes would be bolted to the foundation and each home would have a cellar.


----------



## Dont Taz Me Bro (Oct 14, 2014)

tuhaybey said:


> Dont Taz Me Bro said:
> 
> 
> > That is, of course, patently false, which I didn't even need to look up to know.
> ...



It does exactly that.



> I compared what a person making $60k in CA pays in taxes to what a person making $60k in TX pays.  The difference is $189/year.



Which is not true, as I just pointed out.



> Your source says that the average Californian pays 11.4% and the average Texan pays 7.5%.  But remember that the average Texan makes about $20k/year less than the average Californian.



Again, false.  The difference is roughly 8 - 9k per year

https://www.census.gov/hhes/www/income/data/ACS_13_1YR_B19119_States.xls



> People in CA make around 50% more than people in Texas.  So, you cut off that 4% of what they make in CA, and they're still making 44% more.





I think you better spend less time at this forum and more time here.

Free Math Tutorials at GCFLearnFree


----------



## Dont Taz Me Bro (Oct 14, 2014)

Wry Catcher said:


> Dont Taz Me Bro said:
> 
> 
> > Wry Catcher said:
> ...



Which again, does nothing to address what I said


----------



## Uncensored2008 (Oct 14, 2014)

At least when it comes to revoking civil rights and crushing the human spirit!


----------



## tuhaybey (Oct 14, 2014)

Dont Taz Me Bro said:


> Again, false.  The difference is roughly 8 - 9k per year



Actually, the total difference is $10k.  Texas is $51k and CA is $61k.  The figures you're looking at where they break it up by family size are different than household median income for some reason.

But, you're right, it isn't $20k.  The gap is $20k between CA and some red states.  For example, Mississippi's median income is $38k- a gap of $23k.  But Texas actually appear to be doing a notable step better than most red states.  That said, it's still a whopping $10k behind CA, which is still a massive gap, much larger than any difference in taxation.



Dont Taz Me Bro said:


> I think you better spend less time at this forum and more time here.
> 
> Free Math Tutorials at GCFLearnFree



Not sure where you thought I made a mathematical error, but my guess is that you were thinking that should be 46% instead of 44%.  If so, that is not correct.  44% is correct because 4% of 150% = 6% of 100%.  You need to figure out the amount taxed on the CA income, then state it as a percentage of the TX income.  I dunno, I'm better at math than I am at explaining math, but 44% is correct.


----------



## tuhaybey (Oct 15, 2014)

Uncensored2008 said:


> At least when it comes to revoking civil rights and crushing the human spirit!



No, that isn't remotely true.  You can look up which Senators and representatives have better voting records on civil rights here- leadership-conference-voting-record-113-congress.xlsx

Most Republicans support civil rights legislation 10% of the time or less and most the Democrats are over 90%.  There are notable exceptions- generally the ones you guys call "RINOs".  Some of them get up as high as say 30% or 40%, but that certainly is the exception rather than the norm.  In fact, many Republicans are supporting civil rights 0% of the time and many Democrats are supporting civil rights 100% of the time.  So, you seem to have somehow flipped it backwards in your head.


----------



## Wry Catcher (Oct 15, 2014)

Dont Taz Me Bro said:


> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> > Dont Taz Me Bro said:
> ...



You missed the "critical thinking" part, not surprisingly.

Democrats walk the walk; Republicans talk the talk.  Soon even some in the Red States will recognize this truth, and even if R's still win in the back woods - unless the R's change and realize winning elections means they need to govern - the party of Limbaugh will soon die.


----------



## Dont Taz Me Bro (Oct 15, 2014)

tuhaybey said:


> Not sure where you thought I made a mathematical error, but my guess is that you were thinking that should be 46% instead of 44%.  If so, that is not correct.  44% is correct because 4% of 150% = 6% of 100%.  You need to figure out the amount taxed on the CA income, then state it as a percentage of the TX income.  I dunno, I'm better at math than I am at explaining math, but 44% is correct.



  You're good at neither.  You have no idea what you're talking about and I'm not going to waste any further time on this.  If you want to wallow in ignorance that's your privilege.


----------



## Dont Taz Me Bro (Oct 15, 2014)

Wry Catcher said:


> Dont Taz Me Bro said:
> 
> 
> > Wry Catcher said:
> ...



Which again, does nothing to address what I said


----------



## tuhaybey (Oct 15, 2014)

Dont Taz Me Bro said:


> You're good at neither.  You have no idea what you're talking about and I'm not going to waste any further time on this.  If you want to wallow in ignorance that's your privilege.



Ah, the classic "I have a really good argument that totally shows that you're wrong, I just don't feel like presenting it" line...  Has that ever fooled anybody in the history of the Internet?


----------



## Dont Taz Me Bro (Oct 15, 2014)

tuhaybey said:


> Dont Taz Me Bro said:
> 
> 
> > You're good at neither.  You have no idea what you're talking about and I'm not going to waste any further time on this.  If you want to wallow in ignorance that's your privilege.
> ...



I have already presented it and clearly shown everything you've said is manufactured from your own mind.  If you're not going to admit you're wrong based on the hard data then there is nothing more I can say.  At some point you have to take the advice of Mark Twain who said "Never argue with a fool, onlookers may not be able to tell the difference."

Have a nice day.


----------



## Rikurzhen (Oct 15, 2014)

tuhaybey said:


> It has been 5 days now and still not a single Republican has come up with even one measure by which Republican leaders perform better.  Not one.



There is this fact about Republican voters though:

The left-leaning Pew Research Center provides the latest example. 

Each year, Pew conducts its "What Do Americans Know" survey, which tests respondents on a series of questions.  This year, the topics included the federal minimum wage, the territory occupied by ISIS, the Ukraine, Common Core educational proposals, fracking, where the Ebola virus is centered, Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu, the U.S. poverty rate, where Shiite Muslims outnumber Sunnis, who chairs the Federal Reserve, where the federal government spends most and the U.S. unemployment rate.  Unsurprisingly, older adults demonstrated greater knowledge than their younger counterparts, as did better-educated respondents. 

But buried at the bottom of the survey report lies the subject heading "Partisan Differences in Knowledge," which itemizes each question and the percentage of Republicans, Democrats and Independents who answered each one correctly. 

So how stark were the partisan knowledge differentials? 

*Out of 12 questions asked, Republicans outperformed both Democrats and Independents on 10.*  The differences were most pronounced on the questions regarding Common Core, fracking and where Shiites outnumber Sunnis, where the percentage of Republicans answering correctly outpaced Democrats by double digits.  But Republicans also outperformed Democrats on questions centering on the federal minimum wage and the Fed Chairwoman, even though she's a Democrat appointed by Obama, while the minimum wage is Democrats' favorite wedge issue this election year to try to keep Harry Reid (D - Nevada) as the Senate Majority Leader. 

Democrats only outscored Republicans in naming the primary Ebola outbreak location and the federal poverty rate, but only by 2 and 5 percentage points, respectively. 

That obviously amounts to a lopsided Republican advantage in knowledge.  But take a look at how Pew attempted to soften the findings: 

_"Differences in news knowledge across partisan groups are relatively modest, though Republicans tend to do somewhat better than Democrats overall.  Republicans are 16 points more likely than Democrats to answer the Common Core question correctly (58% vs. 42%).  And 57% of Republicans identify the oil industry as a primary driver of growth in North Dakota, compared with 42% of Democrats.  On other issues, such as the unemployment rate, there are hardly any differences in news knowledge between Republicans and Democrats.  Just 38% of Republicans and 34% of Democrats know that the unemployment rate is currently closest to 6%.  Many Americans overestimate the current unemployment rate:  27% say it is closest to 9%, while an additional 18% think the rate is closest to 12%."  _​
Think about that for a moment. * Imagine two football teams playing 12 head-to-head games, with one winning 10 and the other 2.  It would be preposterous for a sportswriter to describe that differential as  "relatively modest," or that the team winning 10 of 12 games performed "somewhat better" than the team that lost 10 of 12. *

This year's results parallel surveys from previous years, so it's not as though it should have come as an unwelcome surprise to the left-leaning Pew. 

In 2012, Republicans outscored Democrats on 11 of 12 items.  Yet in that instance Pew also described Republicans' performance as "somewhat better" than Democratic voters.  In the 2011 Pew survey, Republicans outperformed Democrats on every single one of 19 questions, and in 2010 Republicans tested better than Democrats on 10 of 12 questions, with 1 tie score and Democrats testing better on just 1.​


----------



## Rikurzhen (Oct 15, 2014)

tuhaybey said:


> Yes... Of course... The thing where tea party types assume liberals must be unemployed is so weird lol.  You understand that we have a way higher median income than you guys do, right?  For example, San Francisco, which is just about 95% Democratic, has a median income $35k/year higher and the average person has 2.5 more years of education than the southern Republican states.



What special kind of moron moves to San Francisco in order "enjoy" a $35,000 per year boost in income? Here's a cost of living calculator comparing San Francisco to Wichita:

A salary of *$55,000* in Wichita, Kansas should increase to *$153,368* in San Francisco, California​


San Francisco is _179%_ more expensive than Wichita.​​Housing is _637%_ more expensive in San Francisco.​
[TBODY]
[/TBODY]


> We're rapidly getting to the point where all highly successful people (not counting people who are successful because they inherited something) are liberals.



What kind of retard believes this shit? Look at the Upper Class column:










> The 3 richest people in the country all are very liberal, virtually everybody at a top 10 school is liberal, lawyers, doctors, scientists, etc., all liberal.



So you're the moron who actually believes this shit? It's good, I suppose, when people purposely out themselves for it shows them to be comfortable with their disability.

The Democrats are a coalition of the Top and the Bottom of the society against the Middle. Both factions benefit from an interventionist government. The crony class can corrupt government to extract wealth from society. They're small in number but they twist government to suck wealth from the middle class. The poor are far larger in number and they too extract wealth from the productive middle class.

Does this look like Democrats are successful?


----------



## Rikurzhen (Oct 15, 2014)

tuhaybey said:


> The labor participation rate is mostly just a misunderstanding on the right.  That is just the percentage of people between 16 and 65 years old who are working. * So, everybody who is in school and everybody who retires before 65 are "non-participating."  Those are the two main reasons that the rate has been steadily falling since the 1990s- baby boomers are retiring and younger people are staying in school longer.  The assumption that it means people just giving up or something is false*.  Only a couple/few percent of the non-participating people are actually in that camp.



Wow, I've met some liberal idiots in my time on this board, but you take the cake. You actually have the chutzpah to "correct" people with a blatantly ignorant definition that you apparently pulled out of your ass. I see this liberal mindset in a lot of you liberals- whatever nonsense pops into your head must be correct because otherwise you'd be in violation of the Liberal Golden Rule - "whatever a liberal thinks must be correct, otherwise a liberal wouldn't hold that position."

Definition of Labor Force Participation Rate:

Typically "working-age persons" is defined as people between the ages of 16-64. *People in those age groups who are not counted as participating in the labor force are typically students, homemakers, and persons under the age of 64 who are retired. *​


----------



## tuhaybey (Oct 15, 2014)

Rikurzhen said:


> Does this look like Democrats are successful?



Getting 54% of the vote of people who work full time?  Uh, yeah, that is successful...  Did you not understand that chart lol?

As for cost of living, to some extent you get what you pay for.  If you want to live somewhere nice, so do lots of other people, so prices go up.

But, those cost of living comparisons are misleading anyways.  Comparing, for example, the price of a 5 bedroom ranch-style house with a 3 car garage and a yard in Wichita with the price of the same thing in SF is not meaningful information.  In major cities, people live in smaller places.  It isn't that it costs more so much as that there are more people who want to live there, so they live more packed together.  Somebody working as a computer programmer in Wichita lives in a big freestanding house, but doesn't have much access to the arts, culture, night life, etc.  A computer programmer in SF has access to those things, but lives in an apartment for which he or she pays the same amount.  If having a McManshion is your goal, sure, go to Wichita.  If you'd rather have what a city has to offer, go to SF.


----------



## Rikurzhen (Oct 15, 2014)

tuhaybey said:


> As for cost of living, to some extent you get what you pay for.  If you want to live somewhere nice, so do lots of other people, so prices go up.



So now it's geography and not politics that is the issue. San Francisco and Detroit are both liberal dominated cities. San Francisco is built on the coast and so a lot of people want to live there but Detroit doesn't share the same luck and it's liberal governance structure doesn't seem to be working well at drawing people to move there.

Zander was trying to teach you something about correlation not implying causation and apparently his lessons didn't penetrate your biased "thinking" skills.

Yeah, people like living in San Francisco because nice weather and nice views are popular. Hey, maybe San Francisco's successful efforts to drive blacks out of the city is also appealing to white liberals:

San Francisco must stop calling itself "diverse" until The City once again has a thriving population of black residents, Supervisor London Breed said Wednesday while discussing that community's 36 percent shrinkage during the last two decades.​


> But, those cost of living comparisons are misleading anyways.  Comparing, for example, the price of a 5 bedroom ranch-style house with a 3 car garage and a yard in Wichita with the price of the same thing in SF is not meaningful information.



The Seattle Seahawks won the Superbowl but that isn't meaningful information about which team was the best in football, am I right? What really counts is which team had the most equal time on field for each player on the roster, that's what counts.



> In major cities, people live in smaller places.  It isn't that it costs more so much as that there are more people who want to live there, so they live more packed together.



And yet people go through phases in life, so we see young people flocking to cities and living in dorm room apartments and paying a rent that would fund a mortgage for a large house in Wichita but living in a dorm room or living with 5 roommates puts a real crimp on getting married, having a place of your own and raising children.

San Francisco = 13.4% of population under 18
Wichita, KS = 26.6% of population under 18

San Francisco = 11.1% of households have a child under 18
Wichita = 23.6% of households have a child under 18

San Francisco = 43.7% of households comprised of family
Wichita = 62.5% of households comprised of family

Living with roommates is far more popular in San Francisco than in Wichita, same with living without children in your life.


----------



## Zander (Oct 15, 2014)

You're wasting your time Rik. The stupid runs very deep in this one.  He just makes shit up as he goes......


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## birddog (Oct 15, 2014)

I agree the Ds outperform the Rs in the areas of lack of patriotism, wasting taxpayer's money, illegal immigration support, weakening the military, voter fraud, etc, etc.


----------



## westwall (Oct 15, 2014)

tuhaybey said:


> Democratic leaders consistently trounce Republicans by pretty much every objective measure of performance.  That is true at the state and federal level and regardless of whether we are talking about the legislative or executive branch.
> 
> For example, consider GDP growth by the party of the federal government:
> 
> ...






The largest number of people on government assistance that this country has ever seen and you think that's good?  Try thinking for yourself sometime and stop believing everything that the progressives spoon feed you.


----------



## Dont Taz Me Bro (Oct 15, 2014)

Democrats are polling at a 30 year low and it's largely due to economic reasons.  

Trouble Looms for Obama Democrats with Election Day 2014 Approaching - ABC News


----------



## Rikurzhen (Oct 15, 2014)

Dont Taz Me Bro said:


> Democrats are polling at a 30 year low and* it's largely due to economic reasons.  *
> 
> Trouble Looms for Obama Democrats with Election Day 2014 Approaching - ABC News



I didn't get that impression - the common thread seems to be incompetence and ideologically driven decisions which produce failure. Yes, both are expressed within the economy but the article lists other problems too.


----------



## Dont Taz Me Bro (Oct 15, 2014)

Rikurzhen said:


> Dont Taz Me Bro said:
> 
> 
> > Democrats are polling at a 30 year low and* it's largely due to economic reasons.  *
> ...



"It's the economy, stupid." - James Carville


----------



## Zander (Oct 15, 2014)

Dont Taz Me Bro said:


> Democrats are polling at a 30 year low and it's largely due to economic reasons.
> 
> Trouble Looms for Obama Democrats with Election Day 2014 Approaching - ABC News




Wait until the new "Obamacare" rates kick in.......and the tax refunds are seized.......and the amnesty......


----------



## Rikurzhen (Oct 15, 2014)

Dont Taz Me Bro said:


> Rikurzhen said:
> 
> 
> > Dont Taz Me Bro said:
> ...



What happens when you put imbeciles atop the Commanding Heights of the economy? Policy decisions can translate into economic consequences. What that story pointed to was decisonmaking, not outcomes. "Do you think that society is moving in the right direction" speaks to decisions, not mere outcomes.


----------



## tuhaybey (Oct 15, 2014)

Rikurzhen said:


> So now it's geography and not politics that is the issue. San Francisco and Detroit are both liberal dominated cities. San Francisco is built on the coast and so a lot of people want to live there but Detroit doesn't share the same luck and it's liberal governance structure doesn't seem to be working well at drawing people to move there.



Detroit is, of course, suffering from the flight of manufacturing to the third world.  That's a problem that spans politics.  Red and blue manufacturing cities alike are affected.  The cost of living in Detroit is super low though, so I'm not sure what you're arguing there...  Just a general dig on Detroit?  Guess what- it still has a higher median income than any of the deep southern states.



Rikurzhen said:


> Zander was trying to teach you something about correlation not implying causation and apparently his lessons didn't penetrate your biased "thinking" skills.



The whole "correlation is not causation" line is just a kneejerk oneliner people blurt out when they don't like the evidence they're seeing.  I debunked it thoroughly and he had no defense for his position, so I think that's that on that one, no?

As for the stuff about Wichita vs. SF, by all means, I can see the appeal of both.  Not trying to say anything about that.  Just that you can't compare prices, for example, an X-square foot house with a Y-car garage on a Z-acre lot from one to the other and pretend it is apples to apples.


----------



## tuhaybey (Oct 15, 2014)

birddog said:


> I agree the Ds outperform the Rs in the areas of lack of patriotism, wasting taxpayer's money, illegal immigration support, weakening the military, voter fraud, etc, etc.



Lack of patriotism lol?  Which party is it that can't stop talking about succession again?  Remember all that talk when Bush attacked Iraq about how it was unpatriotic to question the president in war time?  What the hell do you think you guys do 24/7?  At this point, to consider conservative "patriotic" is just flat out bizarre...  You would have to have been in a cave for the past 6 years.  Conservatives loathe this country.  They think it is some kind of Muslim communist dictatorship full of takers and all that.


----------



## tuhaybey (Oct 15, 2014)

It's been a week now and still not a single example from any Republican of any measure of any kind that Republican politicians do better on.  Not one.  They have literally been unable to come up with any kind of reason at all to vote Republican except for the emotions they feel about whatever caricature of liberals Limbaugh programmed them with or whatever it is they're always so upset about.

As a reminder, this is one of the examples of what they're unable to explain away:






GDP performance of parties and divided government


----------



## Rikurzhen (Oct 15, 2014)

tuhaybey said:


> Rikurzhen said:
> 
> 
> > So now it's geography and not politics that is the issue. San Francisco and Detroit are both liberal dominated cities. San Francisco is built on the coast and so a lot of people want to live there but Detroit doesn't share the same luck and it's liberal governance structure doesn't seem to be working well at drawing people to move there.
> ...



Your argument has been that it is liberalism which makes SF so great and Detroit too has been run by a Democratic machine, just like SF, so why aren't they duplicating what's happened in SF? They, after all, have the same ideological levers to pull and SF went through the same economic cycle as Detroit:

By the end of the 1950s, the waterfront north of the Bay Bridge was faced with a problem affecting many central cities.* Industry, particularly heavy industry and other activities which relied on material brought through the port, was abandoning San Francisco.* The port's connection to nearby inland areas was eroding. Traditionally, production plants had been multi-storied and located near inputs-that is, near raw materials requiring processing and/or packing.* But businesses had begun to leave their waterfront locations in order to take advantage of cheaper suburban sites*-cheaper because changes in production and warehousing had begun to make multi-story facilities obsolete.

To a large degree,* industrial relocation* was enabled by the explosion in trucking, which was in turn tied to the expansion of the nation's highway system. Trucks eliminated the cost advantage of being located near inputs, which was insubstantial compared to the savings from the more efficient new facilities in suburban sites.

Additionally, manufactured items were beginning to replace raw, unrefined, or pre-production cargo manufactured items (for example, electronics and machinery began to displace fruits, spices, coffee, and sugar). The result was that few, if any, processing plants were needed near the waterfront and fewer goods were being exported through the Port of San Francisco.

*As industry relocated*, new uses generated by the rise of a service sector economy replaced it. This transformation, especially inland of port property, caused a classic land use conflict. Once a truck finally maneuvered off of a pier, it was faced with increasing traffic congestion created by tourist activity and a growing downtown. This logistical problem led, in part, to shipping lines opting to reduce or eliminate calls to the Port of San Francisco. In fact, one reason that the Embarcadero was conceived of as a raised freeway was to try to separate through traffic from the remaining working piers. As it turned out, the construction of the Embarcadero Freeway was a harbinger of the northern waterfront's changing role in the decades to come.​
So if it's really liberal governance ideas which are responsible for SF's success, then why didn't those SAME IDEAS work in Detroit?




> Rikurzhen said:
> 
> 
> > Zander was trying to teach you something about correlation not implying causation and apparently his lessons didn't penetrate your biased "thinking" skills.
> ...



You're a deluded moron.


----------



## Rikurzhen (Oct 15, 2014)

tuhaybey said:


> It's been a week now and still not a single example from any Republican of any measure of any kind that Republican politicians do better on.  Not one.  They have literally been unable to come up with any kind of reason at all to vote Republican except for the emotions they feel about whatever caricature of liberals Limbaugh programmed them with or whatever it is they're always so upset about.
> 
> As a reminder, this is one of the examples of what they're unable to explain away:
> 
> ...



You need to show a model, fuckwit. Correlation doesn't explain anything. How does a Global Business Cycle respond to a Democrat in the WH? How does the internet revolution in business processes affect productivity, profit, job growth, and GDP performance? What did a Democratic House do to influence the revolution? Did a subsequent Republican Administration also capture the growth or was that growth a one time gain? How about time-lag for policies to kick in and modify behavior and decision making? The party in power which passed a policy might be out of power when the policy produces results, both good and bad.

You have to be an idiot to expect people to reach conclusions based on mere correlations. Oops, you yourself have reached conclusions based on mere correlations without understand the CAUSAL relationships which lead to the outcomes. I suppose that that says something about you.


----------



## tuhaybey (Oct 15, 2014)

Rikurzhen said:


> Your argument has been that it is liberalism which makes SF so great and Detroit too has been run by a Democratic machine, just like SF, so why aren't they duplicating what's happened in SF? They, after all, have the same ideological levers to pull and SF went through the same economic cycle as Detroit:



Already answered.  Again- flight of manufacturing to the third world.



Rikurzhen said:


> You need to show a model, fuckwit. Correlation doesn't explain anything.



Yeah, the whole "it's probably just a really big coincidence" line isn't working for you lol.


----------



## birddog (Oct 17, 2014)

tuhaybey said:


> birddog said:
> 
> 
> > I agree the Ds outperform the Rs in the areas of lack of patriotism, wasting taxpayer's money, illegal immigration support, weakening the military, voter fraud, etc, etc.
> ...




I disagree.  We were enlightened to know years ago that the FLOTUS was finally proud of America.  Obama cares more about muslims than he does Christians evidenced by his PC actions and proclamations.

Conservatives better support the Constitution.  Conservatives support a strong military and the protection of our borders. Obviously, you wouldn't know what true patriotism was if it hit you between the eyes so to speak, you dumbass liberal!


----------



## Zander (Oct 17, 2014)

California has 23.4% poverty . Liberalism at it's finest!! 



> ....found some of the highest rates in the San Francisco Bay Area and coastal communities usually considered affluent due to their high costs of housing. Los Angeles had the highest rate in the state, 26.9 percent, followed by Napa at 25.5 percent.



Census Bureau California still has highest U.S. poverty rate The Sacramento Bee


----------



## tuhaybey (Oct 17, 2014)

birddog said:


> I disagree.  We were enlightened to know years ago that the FLOTUS was finally proud of America.  Obama cares more about muslims than he does Christians evidenced by his PC actions and proclamations.
> 
> Conservatives better support the Constitution.  Conservatives support a strong military and the protection of our borders. Obviously, you wouldn't know what true patriotism was if it hit you between the eyes so to speak, you dumbass liberal!



In a single post, you're advocating for the Constitution and contending that the president should "care more about Christians"?  That would be the most obviously unconstitutional thing a president could do...  Hell, the whole reason the colonists came over here was to escape king "caring more" about members of particular religious sects.  The Declaration of Independence and Constitution talk more about the importance of avoiding that particular evil more than anything else....

This is typical of conservative views on the Constitution.  They tend to be very passionate about it, but completely lacking in any understanding of it.


----------



## tuhaybey (Oct 17, 2014)

Zander said:


> California has 23.4% poverty . Liberalism at it's finest!!
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Percentage below the poverty line:

San Francisco- 13.2% San Francisco County QuickFacts from the US Census Bureau

California- 15.3% California QuickFacts from the US Census Bureau

Mississippi- 22.3% Mississippi QuickFacts from the US Census Bureau

Houston- 22.2% Houston city QuickFacts from the US Census Bureau

Atlanta- 24.3% Atlanta city QuickFacts from the US Census Bureau


----------



## Zander (Oct 17, 2014)

tuhaybey said:


> Zander said:
> 
> 
> > California has 23.4% poverty . Liberalism at it's finest!!
> ...



I know you are slow, but you do realize that the US Census Bureau  changed the way they calculate poverty? They now caluculate "COST OF LIVING". It is far more accurate.....How does the KOOL AID taste now? 

http://www.census.gov/content/dam/C...ml=gd&utm_medium=email&utm_source=govdelivery


----------



## birddog (Oct 17, 2014)

tuhaybey said:


> birddog said:
> 
> 
> > I disagree.  We were enlightened to know years ago that the FLOTUS was finally proud of America.  Obama cares more about muslims than he does Christians evidenced by his PC actions and proclamations.
> ...



You obviously don't understand the First Amendment the way the Founders intended it.  Obama seems to care more about PC and muslims than he does Christians, and that's a fact!


----------



## tuhaybey (Oct 17, 2014)

birddog said:


> You obviously don't understand the First Amendment the way the Founders intended it.  Obama seems to care more about PC and muslims than he does Christians, and that's a fact!



Again, the idea that the president is supposed to care more about Christians than members of other religious sects is ridiculous...  The president's duty is to all Americans equally.  That is the opposite of what the first amendment is about...

What does it mean to "care more about PC?"  You mean caring about equality and rejecting bigotry?  Of course a president is supposed to care more about that than he cares about what religion people are...  Duh.


----------



## tuhaybey (Oct 17, 2014)

Zander said:


> I know you are slow, but you do realize that the US Census Bureau  changed the way they calculate poverty? They now caluculate "COST OF LIVING". It is far more accurate.....How does the KOOL AID taste now?
> 
> http://www.census.gov/content/dam/C...ml=gd&utm_medium=email&utm_source=govdelivery



Maybe I am slow, but you keep losing every single point to me, so what does that say about you lol?

The census didn't "change the way they calculate poverty" they give an additional measure that they use in some cases.  The stats I gave you are the latest census numbers for the main poverty stat.  Those links go to census.gov silly.


----------



## Zander (Oct 17, 2014)

tuhaybey said:


> Zander said:
> 
> 
> > I know you are slow, but you do realize that the US Census Bureau  changed the way they calculate poverty? They now caluculate "COST OF LIVING". It is far more accurate.....How does the KOOL AID taste now?
> ...



FAIL. The main poverty stats were insufficient and inaccurate., hence the SPM.  You've got to put down the Kool-Aid kid,  you're looking like a dullard. 



> The Supplemental Poverty Measure(SPM) released by the U.S. Census Bureau, with support from the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS).The SPM extends the official
> poverty measure by t*aking account of many of the government programs designed to assist low-income families and individuals that are not included in the current official
> poverty measure.Concerns about the adequacy of the official measure culminated in a congressional appropriation in 1990 for an independent scientific study of the concepts, *measurement methods, and information needed for a poverty measure. In response, the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) established the Panel on Poverty and Family Assistance.......


----------



## tuhaybey (Oct 17, 2014)

Zander said:


> FAIL. The main poverty stats were insufficient and inaccurate., hence the SPM.  You've got to put down the Kool-Aid kid,  you're looking like a dullard.



What is your deal man?  You don't seem to read the stuff I post before you start blurting out angry replies...  I already explained what that measure is and you aren't even saying anything that contradicts what I said, but you're still behaving this way?  Why?


----------



## RKMBrown (Oct 17, 2014)

tuhaybey said:


> Democratic leaders consistently trounce Republicans by pretty much every objective measure of performance.  That is true at the state and federal level and regardless of whether we are talking about the legislative or executive branch.
> 
> For example, consider GDP growth by the party of the federal government:
> 
> ...


What a fucking retard you are.


----------



## birddog (Oct 17, 2014)

tuhaybey said:


> birddog said:
> 
> 
> > You obviously don't understand the First Amendment the way the Founders intended it.  Obama seems to care more about PC and muslims than he does Christians, and that's a fact!
> ...




He should not care more for muslims than Christians, but he obviously does unless you are real stupid and can't see it!

Our country is based on Judeo-Christian principles.  IMHO, Muslims are a cult, not a true religion, and do not deserve any protection of the First Amendment anyway.  There are several religions that do.

Obama's PC ties in with his anti-Christian stances and pro-muslim stances.

I will end with the famous quote,  "If you voted for Obama twice, you are way too ignorant to argue with!"


----------



## tuhaybey (Oct 17, 2014)

birddog said:


> He should not care more for muslims than Christians, but he obviously does unless you are real stupid and can't see it!



What makes you think Obama cares what religion you are?  American Christians always have this weird persecution complex things.  Guess what- nobody else gives your religion much thought at all.  Whatever you want to do with your Sunday mornings, we don't care.  We never ask what religion you are and when you tell us- unsolicited- we only pretend to pay attention out of politeness.



birddog said:


> IMHO, Muslims are a cult, not a true religion, and do not deserve any protection of the First Amendment anyway.



So, just a few hours ago you were ranting about how into the Constitution you are.  Now that's all over and you just want to pick and choose which religions you like and only those are permitted?  Um....


----------



## Harry Dresden (Oct 17, 2014)

rdean said:


> Delta4Embassy said:
> 
> 
> > Republicans have better sex, more orgasms, etc. though. Seems counterintuitive until you consider Republicans make sex so illicit and taboo it's no wonder then they're eager little beavers in bed.
> ...


well that leaves you out.....it must be a turnoff to the women when you check under the bed and in the closets for Republicans and ask how she is registered...


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Oct 17, 2014)

tuhaybey said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > It's true, when you look at food stamps, number of people leaving the labor force, record debt and deficits, the Dems own it
> ...


WOW more people dependent own other's instead of themselves is a good thing?
What in the hell have you been smoking obama crack?


----------



## tuhaybey (Oct 17, 2014)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> WOW more people dependent own other's instead of themselves is a good thing?
> What in the hell have you been smoking obama crack?



Fewer people having to worry about not getting enough to eat, uh, yeah, of course that is a good thing.  What planet are you from where people don't know that?


----------



## tuhaybey (Oct 19, 2014)

11 days and still no Republican has managed to come up with even one economic area where Republican candidates perform better.

Ok, so at this stage, it is safe to say that Republicans aren't voting Republican for any economic reason, right?  So what is the GOP for?  Just a vehicle for expressing your feelings about gay people or something?


----------



## boedicca (Oct 19, 2014)

I think you are going to be sorely disappointed.  Obama is in his Spinal Tap on the Skids phase...and is dragging down the Dims.




7103 by boedicca on US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum


----------



## tuhaybey (Oct 31, 2014)

It's been 23 days now and still nobody has managed to come up with a single economic measure that Republican policies perform better under.  The election is coming up. Is it safe to say that we all agree that Democratic policies perform better then?


----------



## RKMBrown (Nov 1, 2014)

tuhaybey said:


> It's been 23 days now and still nobody has managed to come up with a single economic measure that Republican policies perform better under.  The election is coming up. Is it safe to say that we all agree that Democratic policies perform better then?


You're a retard.


----------



## tuhaybey (Nov 1, 2014)

RKMBrown said:


> You're a retard.



Says the guy who thinks we should vote Republican despite the economic record because.... stfu you stupid commie!


----------



## Wry Catcher (Nov 1, 2014)

RKMBrown said:


> tuhaybey said:
> 
> 
> > It's been 23 days now and still nobody has managed to come up with a single economic measure that Republican policies perform better under.  The election is coming up. Is it safe to say that we all agree that Democratic policies perform better then?
> ...



LOL, You're the retard.  Of course that's why you are a Republican apologist, and why the former GOP covets you.  Easy to manipulate you are the best bet for a Republican victory.  No amount of evidence can persuade you to question the dogma you have been fed by the propagandists or the leaders of your party (watch, he'll deny he's a Republican, the usual safe harbor for closeted Republicans is to claim being independent, even when every post they make proves that is who they support) such as Boehner, Eric 'the weasel' and McConnell (what have they done to make the US safer and it economy stronger?  Just say no has been as effective as it was on the work on drugs).


----------



## Wry Catcher (Nov 1, 2014)

tuhaybey said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> > You're a retard.
> ...



Suggesting RKMBrown thinks is to give him too much credit.  There is no evidence to support that theory.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Nov 1, 2014)

Critical thinkers and users of empirical data, which leaves out almost all of the far right on the Board and most of the far left here, always out perform others.

One of the sure tricks is watching one of the reactionary far righties claim to be mainstream, or make an opinion then demand you rebut it with evidence that s/he won't accept it.


----------



## RKMBrown (Nov 1, 2014)

tuhaybey said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> > You're a retard.
> ...


Who said anything about voting republican? Oh yeah you did, ya fucking retard.


----------



## tuhaybey (Nov 1, 2014)

RKMBrown said:


> Who said anything about voting republican? Oh yeah you did, ya fucking retard.



You are a Ted Cruz supporter, right?  Were you aware of which party Mr. Cruz is in?

I don't really care about your weird inter-faction squabbles.  Tea Party, Republican, whatever, you're all the same thing.


----------



## RKMBrown (Nov 1, 2014)

tuhaybey said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> > Who said anything about voting republican? Oh yeah you did, ya fucking retard.
> ...


No, I don't like Ted Cruz.  Don't trust him at all.  My inter-faction squabbles?  WTF are you talking about? Are you smoking weed or something?


----------



## tuhaybey (Nov 1, 2014)

RKMBrown said:


> No, I don't like Ted Cruz.  Don't trust him at all.  My inter-faction squabbles?  WTF are you talking about? Are you smoking weed or something?



Um:



RKMBrown said:


> There are a few good pubs, Rubio, Cruz... but really most of the republican leaders are decidedly socialist.  Bohner?  Really?  Bush? McCain? Romney? WTF?


----------



## RKMBrown (Nov 1, 2014)

tuhaybey said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> > No, I don't like Ted Cruz.  Don't trust him at all.  My inter-faction squabbles?  WTF are you talking about? Are you smoking weed or something?
> ...


He's good for pubs... as far as that goes.  I don't trust any pubs.  I'm libertarian.  I put cruz in with clinton... both appear to like our country.. Clinton was good for the country and the dems, but both clinton and cruz are pretty much in it for themselves.


----------



## tuhaybey (Nov 1, 2014)

RKMBrown said:


> He's good for pubs... as far as that goes.  I don't trust any pubs.  I'm libertarian.  I put cruz in with clinton... both appear to like our country.. Clinton was good for the country and the dems, but both clinton and cruz are pretty much in it for themselves.



If you think John Boehner is a "socialist" that means you're a teabagger.  There is no ambiguity there.  In fact, just by the time you get to the point where you start calling anybody (other than an actual socialist) a "socialist," that means you're a teabagger.


----------



## RKMBrown (Nov 2, 2014)

tuhaybey said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> > He's good for pubs... as far as that goes.  I don't trust any pubs.  I'm libertarian.  I put cruz in with clinton... both appear to like our country.. Clinton was good for the country and the dems, but both clinton and cruz are pretty much in it for themselves.
> ...


I don't tea bag, you POS sexual deviant.  And Boehner is a cry baby socialist.


----------



## tuhaybey (Nov 2, 2014)

RKMBrown said:


> I don't tea bag, you POS sexual deviant.  And Boehner is a cry baby socialist.



I really don't care about your internal faction squabbles.  If you want to call yourself a Republican or a teabagger or a "libertarian" (that isn't really what libertarian means, but most Republicans misuse the term) or an "independent" who just happens to always vote Republican or a "constitutionalist" who just votes Republican, or whatever else you want to call yourselves, I couldn't care less.


----------



## RKMBrown (Nov 2, 2014)

tuhaybey said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> > I don't tea bag, you POS sexual deviant.  And Boehner is a cry baby socialist.
> ...


I'm not republican, or independent, and the tea party is not a political party.  I rarely vote republican. Most republicans are way to socialist for me.  I vote for the person on the ticket that is for liberty.


----------



## candycorn (Nov 2, 2014)

RKMBrown said:


> tuhaybey said:
> 
> 
> > RKMBrown said:
> ...



Gee, you're once again in an argument with a stranger on the Internet.  I know...I know...it's the other guy who has the problem...right?


----------



## RKMBrown (Nov 2, 2014)

candycorn said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> > tuhaybey said:
> ...


My problem with this guy is the same problem I have with you.  You wont get your grubby little hands out of my pockets.


----------



## candycorn (Nov 2, 2014)

RKMBrown said:


> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> > RKMBrown said:
> ...



The only thing you have in your pockets is likely you're crying towel and a crack pipe....no interest in either.


----------



## RKMBrown (Nov 2, 2014)

candycorn said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> > candycorn said:
> ...


How would you know there is a pipe in my pocket, no sweetie that's not a crack pipe in your hand.


----------



## tuhaybey (Nov 2, 2014)

RKMBrown said:


> My problem with this guy is the same problem I have with you.  You wont get your grubby little hands out of my pockets.



Hands out of your pockets?  Did you not read this thread at all?  It is about how to get more money into your pockets, not less....


----------



## turtledude (Nov 3, 2014)

tuhaybey said:


> Democratic leaders consistently trounce Republicans by pretty much every objective measure of performance.  That is true at the state and federal level and regardless of whether we are talking about the legislative or executive branch.
> 
> For example, consider GDP growth by the party of the federal government:
> 
> ...




then why do Democrats pander to the unperformers while the GOP caters to the successful?


----------



## candycorn (Nov 3, 2014)

turtledude said:


> tuhaybey said:
> 
> 
> > Democratic leaders consistently trounce Republicans by pretty much every objective measure of performance.  That is true at the state and federal level and regardless of whether we are talking about the legislative or executive branch.
> ...



Examples?


----------



## turtledude (Nov 3, 2014)

candycorn said:


> turtledude said:
> 
> 
> > tuhaybey said:
> ...




so Democrats and their tax the rich mantra are pandering to the successful?

which presidential candidate in 2012 was complaining that the successful weren't taxed enough?


----------



## candycorn (Nov 3, 2014)

turtledude said:


> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> > turtledude said:
> ...



Basically it was the Buffet plan...Warren Buffet is pretty successful.


----------



## turtledude (Nov 3, 2014)

candycorn said:


> turtledude said:
> 
> 
> > candycorn said:
> ...




He panders to class envious losers so he can make more money

the Dem party is a split personality

at the top machiavellian power craving elites who pretend to care about the masses

and the rest of the party tends to be losers who want parents to take care of them


----------



## candycorn (Nov 3, 2014)

turtledude said:


> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> > turtledude said:
> ...



332-206  Any way you split it, Romney is a loser.


----------



## turtledude (Nov 3, 2014)

candycorn said:


> turtledude said:
> 
> 
> > candycorn said:
> ...



yeah if your measure is winning elections but that forces you to admit W is a winner too and unlike Obola, he didn't  have friendly judges knock off his opposition in his home state


He also legitimately got into Stanford and Harvard Law without the affirmative action Obama benefited from (a white guy with Obama's "credentials" would not have been accepted at Harvard Law or columbia)

and Romney makes more money in a month than you will make in several years

if you are an obama Fluffer-that pretty much means you are a loser


----------



## candycorn (Nov 3, 2014)

turtledude said:


> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> > turtledude said:
> ...



332-206 
Obama=winner
Mitt=Loser

Sorry, those are the facts.


----------



## turtledude (Nov 3, 2014)

candycorn said:


> turtledude said:
> 
> 
> > candycorn said:
> ...



only someone who worships the government thinks that makes someone a loser

winner-not sucking on the public tit


----------



## tuhaybey (Nov 4, 2014)

turtledude said:


> then why do Democrats pander to the unperformers while the GOP caters to the successful?



The rational thing except for the uberrich at least, is to vote Democratic:







Both parties pander to anybody whose support they think they can get.  That's what they're supposed to do- try to appeal to the voters.  That's the whole point of democracy- the keep the government trying to please the people.

The real question is why are you pandering to the uberrich?  Why would you support policies that are clearly bad for 99.9% of the population just to fawn all over a 0.1% that you very rarely even meet?  What is with the submissive thing on the right?  Why not stand up for yourselves?


----------



## Moonglow (Nov 4, 2014)

I


sameech said:


> tuhaybey said:
> 
> 
> > The deficit has been reduced by more than a trillion dollars in the past few years, so not sure where you're going with that one.  At present, it is pretty clearly a non-issue.
> ...


I doubt 13 year olds want to work as in my day.I didn't want a job. I had to get a job...


----------



## Moonglow (Nov 4, 2014)

CrusaderFrank said:


> tuhaybey said:
> 
> 
> > CrusaderFrank said:
> ...


Reagan's budget was bigger than Calvin Coolidge...so?


----------



## sameech (Nov 4, 2014)

Moonglow said:


> I doubt 13 year olds want to work as in my day.I didn't want a job. I had to get a job...



In your day I doubt a lot of people could stay in their mom's basement not working until they were well into their 20's.  It is not that people are not willing to work at age 13, it is when they are 18 or 23 and still haven't ever worked that it becomes an issue.


----------



## TemplarKormac (Nov 4, 2014)

This thread is quite ironic now. In Iowa tonight, Republican turnout is the highest it's been in 30 years. In North Carolina on the other hand, Democratic turnout is the lowest it has been in 30 years. Iowa is gone, North Carolina is gone. You can count on it.


----------



## turtledude (Nov 5, 2014)

tuhaybey said:


> turtledude said:
> 
> 
> > then why do Democrats pander to the unperformers while the GOP caters to the successful?
> ...



being addicted to government keeps the slow witted down


----------



## tuhaybey (Jan 5, 2015)

Article summarizing the economists' views on the parties and their policies, and whether those views have matched the actual economic performance here- which party is better for the economy?


----------



## RKMBrown (Jan 6, 2015)

tuhaybey said:


> Democratic leaders consistently trounce Republicans by pretty much every objective measure of performance.  That is true at the state and federal level and regardless of whether we are talking about the legislative or executive branch.
> 
> For example, consider GDP growth by the party of the federal government:
> 
> ...


Moron.


----------

