Debate Now "Facts" you know that are wrong.

[Dad2three]

The purpose of this thread is to, hopefully, field engaging back and fourths between posters concerning "facts" that they know about theirs or "the other" side that can be shown to be wrong by a member of the other side. Nobody need bring up something to get it discussed--feel free to start us off if you like. Just speak in the macro for the purposes of this debate. For example, a lot of liberals think that conservatives do not give much to charity when there have been credible studies that show conservatives give a higher percentage of their personal wealth directly to charity. Now certainly, there are some conservatives that give more than others and some liberals give more than some conservatives so the statement isn't true in every case. Some liberals give more than all others and some conservatives give more than all others. The outcome I'm hoping for are some corrections to the conventional wisdom that, who knows, will perhaps be acknowledged by a member of the other side.

Again, you needn't wait for someone to bring up "Liberals are weak on defense" to post facts about how liberal presidents and congresses have supported the troops. Or if you're conservative, you needn't wait for "Conservatives care only about the rich" and point out how conservatives have shown care and concern for the poor.

The ground rules:

1) Again, for purposes of this debate, speak in the macro. You needn't point out that Warren Buffet and Bill Gates are philanthropists when discussing who gives more to the poor. Again, what we're doing here is, hopefully, dyspelling myths about "the other side" or your side. And, once more, you needn't take on the other side. You can definitely lambast what you see as conservatism or liberalism go where it was never needed. I personally think Pelosi's brand of liberalism is exactly what the DNC should be avoiding and, to their credit, they have done a good job centering the Party.

2) Feel free to let the fur fly. Just bring some light when you bring the heat.

3) Have fun. If you're running to the mod every day, you're not doing it right.

So, in conclusion.

By posting here,

You're hopefully dyspelling myths about your side or the other side. You're doing so in the macro, fully acknowledging that there are exceptions and that one liberal or conservative being a dork somewhere does not mean that all libs or cons are dorks.

You're fully entitled to tell someone they are nuts BUT please explain why they are nuts. One-liners are what the board is made up of but they don't belong here.

Your sink is thick enough to take it and your powder is dry enough to dish it out. Again try to be topical....dyspel myths.

Goals of this thread:

Gold Standard: You change minds.
Silver Standard: You gain acknowledgement (voiced or not) that your opponent has been moved off the mark.
Bronze Standard: You make a strong case and support your argument using well respected sources. You defend your case utilizing same.

Debunking the "Conservatives Give More to Charity" Myth.



Partisanship and Charitable Giving

Do conservatives give more to charity than liberals? Nope:

While levels of giving are roughly equivalent, liberals are much more likely to donate to secular organizations, and conservatives are more likely to donate to religious causes, especially their own congregation. ...




Economist s View Partisanship and Charitable Giving


Study: Conservatives and liberals are equally charitable, but they give to different charities

....no statistically significant relationship between peoples' political beliefs, or their partisan affiliation, and their charitable giving level.


Study Conservatives and liberals are equally charitable but they give to different charities - The Washington Post



Giving Differently: Liberals and Conservatives Have Radically Different Views of Charity

Republicans’ moral foundations are embedded in respect for authority and traditions, loyalty and purity


On the other side, Democrats’ moral foundations are rooted in equality and protection from harm, says Mittal...

Giving Differently Liberals and Conservatives Have Radically Different Views of Charity

Your sorry spamming ass really deserves no response. But since I look at your crapp from time to time (have to actually open it since you are on ignore for taking up so much bandwidth).

I am more liberal than I am conservative.

But this claim is what gives liberals a bad name (just like you do).

Here is the claim of the author

we demonstrate that these results are not robust, and appear to be driven by a non-traditional question wording for identifying liberals and conservatives. After correcting for this problem, there is no statistical difference between conservative and liberal giving,

How does he correct for the "problem". He never says.

Brooks laid all his data out there.

The author says he could never get his students to replicate Brooks data....to tired he said.

What a piss poor argument.

lol, GROW A FUKKN BRAIN "LIBERAL" (lol)



The problem was that the survey [from the 2006 book “Who Really Cares” by Arthur C. Brooks] didn’t seem to accurately measure those categories and didn’t distinguish well between social conservatives or liberals and fiscal conservatives or liberals.

What the MIT researchers did find, however, was that conservatives give more to religious organizations, such as their own churches, and liberals more to secular recipients. Conservatives may give more overall, MIT says, but that’s because they tend to be richer, so they have more money to give and get a larger tax benefit from giving it.



...The bottom line, according to the MIT study, was that "liberals are no more or less generous than conservatives once we adjust for differences in church attendance and income."

Who s more charitable -- conservatives or liberals - latimes



Partisanship and Charitable Giving


Do conservatives give more to charity than liberals? Nope


P.S. Recently, Arthur Brooks has been having some trouble with the General Social Survey. Working with data can be difficult!

Economist s View Partisanship and Charitable Giving

 

[Dad2three]

That evul con lie that free stuff can't come from the government.

Of course it's free, with $18 Trillion in debt, we haven't paid for shit in a long time.

Weird the right wing can't seem to see $17+ trillion of the debt has been since Ronnie started the "supply side" crap right? Yep, nothings free!

Bush CEA Chair Mankiw: Claim That Broad-Based Income Tax Cuts Increase Revenue Is Not "Credible," Capital Income Tax Cuts Also Don't Pay For Themselves

Bush-Appointed Federal Reserve Chair Bernanke: "I Don't Think That As A General Rule Tax Cuts Pay For Themselves."


Bush Treasury Secretary Paulson: "As A General Rule, I Don't Believe That Tax Cuts Pay For Themselves."

Bush OMB Director Nussle: "Some Say That [The Tax Cut] Was A Total Loss. Some Say They Totally Pay For Themselves. It's Neither Extreme."


Bush CEA Chairman Lazear: "As A General Rule, We Do Not Think Tax Cuts Pay For Themselves."


Bush Economic Adviser Viard: "Federal Revenue Is Lower Today Than It Would Have Been Without The Tax Cuts."


Bush Treasury Official Carroll: "We Do Not Think Tax Cuts Pay For Themselves."


Reagan Chief Economist Feldstein: "It's Not That You Get More Revenue By Lowering Tax Rates, It Is That You Don't Lose As Much."

Feldstein In 1986: "Hyperbole" That Reagan Tax Cut "Would Actually Increase Tax Revenue."

Conservative Economist Holtz-Eakin: "No Serious Research Evidence" Suggests Tax Cuts Pay For Themselves."

Tax Foundation's Prante: "A Stretch" To Claim "Cutting Capital Gains Taxes Raises Tax Revenues."

 

[Agit8r]

The purpose of this thread is to, hopefully, field engaging back and fourths between posters concerning "facts" that they know about theirs or "the other" side that can be shown to be wrong by a member of the other side. Nobody need bring up something to get it discussed--feel free to start us off if you like. Just speak in the macro for the purposes of this debate. For example, a lot of liberals think that conservatives do not give much to charity when there have been credible studies that show conservatives give a higher percentage of their personal wealth directly to charity. Now certainly, there are some conservatives that give more than others and some liberals give more than some conservatives so the statement isn't true in every case. Some liberals give more than all others and some conservatives give more than all others. The outcome I'm hoping for are some corrections to the conventional wisdom that, who knows, will perhaps be acknowledged by a member of the other side.

Again, you needn't wait for someone to bring up "Liberals are weak on defense" to post facts about how liberal presidents and congresses have supported the troops. Or if you're conservative, you needn't wait for "Conservatives care only about the rich" and point out how conservatives have shown care and concern for the poor.

The ground rules:

1) Again, for purposes of this debate, speak in the macro. You needn't point out that Warren Buffet and Bill Gates are philanthropists when discussing who gives more to the poor. Again, what we're doing here is, hopefully, dyspelling myths about "the other side" or your side. And, once more, you needn't take on the other side. You can definitely lambast what you see as conservatism or liberalism go where it was never needed. I personally think Pelosi's brand of liberalism is exactly what the DNC should be avoiding and, to their credit, they have done a good job centering the Party.

2) Feel free to let the fur fly. Just bring some light when you bring the heat.

3) Have fun. If you're running to the mod every day, you're not doing it right.

So, in conclusion.

By posting here,

You're hopefully dyspelling myths about your side or the other side. You're doing so in the macro, fully acknowledging that there are exceptions and that one liberal or conservative being a dork somewhere does not mean that all libs or cons are dorks.

You're fully entitled to tell someone they are nuts BUT please explain why they are nuts. One-liners are what the board is made up of but they don't belong here.

Your sink is thick enough to take it and your powder is dry enough to dish it out. Again try to be topical....dyspel myths.

Goals of this thread:

Gold Standard: You change minds.
Silver Standard: You gain acknowledgement (voiced or not) that your opponent has been moved off the mark.
Bronze Standard: You make a strong case and support your argument using well respected sources. You defend your case utilizing same.

Debunking the "Conservatives Give More to Charity" Myth.



Partisanship and Charitable Giving

Do conservatives give more to charity than liberals? Nope:

While levels of giving are roughly equivalent, liberals are much more likely to donate to secular organizations, and conservatives are more likely to donate to religious causes, especially their own congregation. ...




Economist s View Partisanship and Charitable Giving


Study: Conservatives and liberals are equally charitable, but they give to different charities

....no statistically significant relationship between peoples' political beliefs, or their partisan affiliation, and their charitable giving level.


Study Conservatives and liberals are equally charitable but they give to different charities - The Washington Post



Giving Differently: Liberals and Conservatives Have Radically Different Views of Charity

Republicans’ moral foundations are embedded in respect for authority and traditions, loyalty and purity


On the other side, Democrats’ moral foundations are rooted in equality and protection from harm, says Mittal...

Giving Differently Liberals and Conservatives Have Radically Different Views of Charity

Your sorry spamming ass really deserves no response. But since I look at your crapp from time to time (have to actually open it since you are on ignore for taking up so much bandwidth).

I am more liberal than I am conservative.

But this claim is what gives liberals a bad name (just like you do).

Here is the claim of the author

we demonstrate that these results are not robust, and appear to be driven by a non-traditional question wording for identifying liberals and conservatives. After correcting for this problem, there is no statistical difference between conservative and liberal giving,

How does he correct for the "problem". He never says.

Brooks laid all his data out there.

The author says he could never get his students to replicate Brooks data....to tired he said.

What a piss poor argument.

lol, GROW A FUKKN BRAIN "LIBERAL" (lol)



The problem was that the survey [from the 2006 book “Who Really Cares” by Arthur C. Brooks] didn’t seem to accurately measure those categories and didn’t distinguish well between social conservatives or liberals and fiscal conservatives or liberals.

What the MIT researchers did find, however, was that conservatives give more to religious organizations, such as their own churches, and liberals more to secular recipients. Conservatives may give more overall, MIT says, but that’s because they tend to be richer, so they have more money to give and get a larger tax benefit from giving it.



...The bottom line, according to the MIT study, was that "liberals are no more or less generous than conservatives once we adjust for differences in church attendance and income."

Who s more charitable -- conservatives or liberals - latimes



Partisanship and Charitable Giving


Do conservatives give more to charity than liberals? Nope


P.S. Recently, Arthur Brooks has been having some trouble with the General Social Survey. Working with data can be difficult!

Economist s View Partisanship and Charitable Giving

Yeah, Arthur Brooks has been completely debunked:

Crackpot Doom Scandal Those Stingy Uncharitable Liberals

 

[sakinago]

Republicans blocked the Obama administration from having subpoena power to investigate BP after the BP oil spill for months until BP could set up a defense and destroy incriminating evidence. One even apologized to BP.





So why don't we debate on this? We can't. Because USMB Republicans say it never happened. You can present footage from the Senate and they will still say it never happened. You can't debate when someone says flat out, "I don't believe it. Republicans would never do that".

Here's one that isn't true!! Boom right there, didn't take long.

"So why don't we debate on this? We can't. Because USMB Republicans say it never happened. You can present footage from the Senate and they will still say it never happened. You can't debate when someone says flat out, "I don't believe it. "

 

[Agit8r]

The most pervasive lies I've encountered on the internet typically have to do with the Founding Fathers being "conservative"* and Hitler being liberal, even though these are demonstratively untrue

*"conservative" like they are.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

FDR was a Great President who saved capitalim

 

[Dad2three]

FDR was a Great President who saved capitalim

Nah, FDR just saved the US from right wingers from Germany/Japan. And capitalism is practiced everywhere in the world. You Klowns should get that!

 

[Sun Devil 92]

How about, the presidents are somehow responsible for the economy...directly.

They may have influence, but they don't pull levers and push buttons in such a way that they can actually dictate outcomes.

There is entire army of people behind the scenes...some not so far behind.

The PRZ is THE MOST responsible for the economy. Just look to Harding/Coolidge/Reagan/Dubya to see when you "don't believe in Gov't regulators" what happens!

So what was Obama's problem ?

The economy isn't as bad as some say......but it isn't that great for many......

Can the president single handedly cure income inequality ?

I've never really blamed (or credited) presidents for the economy. They can have an influence. Both Reagan and Clinton did.

 

[Sun Devil 92]

The purpose of this thread is to, hopefully, field engaging back and fourths between posters concerning "facts" that they know about theirs or "the other" side that can be shown to be wrong by a member of the other side. Nobody need bring up something to get it discussed--feel free to start us off if you like. Just speak in the macro for the purposes of this debate. For example, a lot of liberals think that conservatives do not give much to charity when there have been credible studies that show conservatives give a higher percentage of their personal wealth directly to charity. Now certainly, there are some conservatives that give more than others and some liberals give more than some conservatives so the statement isn't true in every case. Some liberals give more than all others and some conservatives give more than all others. The outcome I'm hoping for are some corrections to the conventional wisdom that, who knows, will perhaps be acknowledged by a member of the other side.

Again, you needn't wait for someone to bring up "Liberals are weak on defense" to post facts about how liberal presidents and congresses have supported the troops. Or if you're conservative, you needn't wait for "Conservatives care only about the rich" and point out how conservatives have shown care and concern for the poor.

The ground rules:

1) Again, for purposes of this debate, speak in the macro. You needn't point out that Warren Buffet and Bill Gates are philanthropists when discussing who gives more to the poor. Again, what we're doing here is, hopefully, dyspelling myths about "the other side" or your side. And, once more, you needn't take on the other side. You can definitely lambast what you see as conservatism or liberalism go where it was never needed. I personally think Pelosi's brand of liberalism is exactly what the DNC should be avoiding and, to their credit, they have done a good job centering the Party.

2) Feel free to let the fur fly. Just bring some light when you bring the heat.

3) Have fun. If you're running to the mod every day, you're not doing it right.

So, in conclusion.

By posting here,

You're hopefully dyspelling myths about your side or the other side. You're doing so in the macro, fully acknowledging that there are exceptions and that one liberal or conservative being a dork somewhere does not mean that all libs or cons are dorks.

You're fully entitled to tell someone they are nuts BUT please explain why they are nuts. One-liners are what the board is made up of but they don't belong here.

Your sink is thick enough to take it and your powder is dry enough to dish it out. Again try to be topical....dyspel myths.

Goals of this thread:

Gold Standard: You change minds.
Silver Standard: You gain acknowledgement (voiced or not) that your opponent has been moved off the mark.
Bronze Standard: You make a strong case and support your argument using well respected sources. You defend your case utilizing same.

Debunking the "Conservatives Give More to Charity" Myth.



Partisanship and Charitable Giving

Do conservatives give more to charity than liberals? Nope:

While levels of giving are roughly equivalent, liberals are much more likely to donate to secular organizations, and conservatives are more likely to donate to religious causes, especially their own congregation. ...




Economist s View Partisanship and Charitable Giving


Study: Conservatives and liberals are equally charitable, but they give to different charities

....no statistically significant relationship between peoples' political beliefs, or their partisan affiliation, and their charitable giving level.


Study Conservatives and liberals are equally charitable but they give to different charities - The Washington Post



Giving Differently: Liberals and Conservatives Have Radically Different Views of Charity

Republicans’ moral foundations are embedded in respect for authority and traditions, loyalty and purity


On the other side, Democrats’ moral foundations are rooted in equality and protection from harm, says Mittal...

Giving Differently Liberals and Conservatives Have Radically Different Views of Charity

Your sorry spamming ass really deserves no response. But since I look at your crapp from time to time (have to actually open it since you are on ignore for taking up so much bandwidth).

I am more liberal than I am conservative.

But this claim is what gives liberals a bad name (just like you do).

Here is the claim of the author

we demonstrate that these results are not robust, and appear to be driven by a non-traditional question wording for identifying liberals and conservatives. After correcting for this problem, there is no statistical difference between conservative and liberal giving,

How does he correct for the "problem". He never says.

Brooks laid all his data out there.

The author says he could never get his students to replicate Brooks data....to tired he said.

What a piss poor argument.

lol, GROW A FUKKN BRAIN "LIBERAL" (lol)



The problem was that the survey [from the 2006 book “Who Really Cares” by Arthur C. Brooks] didn’t seem to accurately measure those categories and didn’t distinguish well between social conservatives or liberals and fiscal conservatives or liberals.

What the MIT researchers did find, however, was that conservatives give more to religious organizations, such as their own churches, and liberals more to secular recipients. Conservatives may give more overall, MIT says, but that’s because they tend to be richer, so they have more money to give and get a larger tax benefit from giving it.



...The bottom line, according to the MIT study, was that "liberals are no more or less generous than conservatives once we adjust for differences in church attendance and income."

Who s more charitable -- conservatives or liberals - latimes



Partisanship and Charitable Giving


Do conservatives give more to charity than liberals? Nope


P.S. Recently, Arthur Brooks has been having some trouble with the General Social Survey. Working with data can be difficult!

Economist s View Partisanship and Charitable Giving

He does not give his measurements.

Sorry....spambot.....that's the way it is.

Brooks laid his data out there.

 

[Sun Devil 92]

The purpose of this thread is to, hopefully, field engaging back and fourths between posters concerning "facts" that they know about theirs or "the other" side that can be shown to be wrong by a member of the other side. Nobody need bring up something to get it discussed--feel free to start us off if you like. Just speak in the macro for the purposes of this debate. For example, a lot of liberals think that conservatives do not give much to charity when there have been credible studies that show conservatives give a higher percentage of their personal wealth directly to charity. Now certainly, there are some conservatives that give more than others and some liberals give more than some conservatives so the statement isn't true in every case. Some liberals give more than all others and some conservatives give more than all others. The outcome I'm hoping for are some corrections to the conventional wisdom that, who knows, will perhaps be acknowledged by a member of the other side.

Again, you needn't wait for someone to bring up "Liberals are weak on defense" to post facts about how liberal presidents and congresses have supported the troops. Or if you're conservative, you needn't wait for "Conservatives care only about the rich" and point out how conservatives have shown care and concern for the poor.

The ground rules:

1) Again, for purposes of this debate, speak in the macro. You needn't point out that Warren Buffet and Bill Gates are philanthropists when discussing who gives more to the poor. Again, what we're doing here is, hopefully, dyspelling myths about "the other side" or your side. And, once more, you needn't take on the other side. You can definitely lambast what you see as conservatism or liberalism go where it was never needed. I personally think Pelosi's brand of liberalism is exactly what the DNC should be avoiding and, to their credit, they have done a good job centering the Party.

2) Feel free to let the fur fly. Just bring some light when you bring the heat.

3) Have fun. If you're running to the mod every day, you're not doing it right.

So, in conclusion.

By posting here,

You're hopefully dyspelling myths about your side or the other side. You're doing so in the macro, fully acknowledging that there are exceptions and that one liberal or conservative being a dork somewhere does not mean that all libs or cons are dorks.

You're fully entitled to tell someone they are nuts BUT please explain why they are nuts. One-liners are what the board is made up of but they don't belong here.

Your sink is thick enough to take it and your powder is dry enough to dish it out. Again try to be topical....dyspel myths.

Goals of this thread:

Gold Standard: You change minds.
Silver Standard: You gain acknowledgement (voiced or not) that your opponent has been moved off the mark.
Bronze Standard: You make a strong case and support your argument using well respected sources. You defend your case utilizing same.

Debunking the "Conservatives Give More to Charity" Myth.



Partisanship and Charitable Giving

Do conservatives give more to charity than liberals? Nope:

While levels of giving are roughly equivalent, liberals are much more likely to donate to secular organizations, and conservatives are more likely to donate to religious causes, especially their own congregation. ...




Economist s View Partisanship and Charitable Giving


Study: Conservatives and liberals are equally charitable, but they give to different charities

....no statistically significant relationship between peoples' political beliefs, or their partisan affiliation, and their charitable giving level.


Study Conservatives and liberals are equally charitable but they give to different charities - The Washington Post



Giving Differently: Liberals and Conservatives Have Radically Different Views of Charity

Republicans’ moral foundations are embedded in respect for authority and traditions, loyalty and purity


On the other side, Democrats’ moral foundations are rooted in equality and protection from harm, says Mittal...

Giving Differently Liberals and Conservatives Have Radically Different Views of Charity

Your sorry spamming ass really deserves no response. But since I look at your crapp from time to time (have to actually open it since you are on ignore for taking up so much bandwidth).

I am more liberal than I am conservative.

But this claim is what gives liberals a bad name (just like you do).

Here is the claim of the author

we demonstrate that these results are not robust, and appear to be driven by a non-traditional question wording for identifying liberals and conservatives. After correcting for this problem, there is no statistical difference between conservative and liberal giving,

How does he correct for the "problem". He never says.

Brooks laid all his data out there.

The author says he could never get his students to replicate Brooks data....to tired he said.

What a piss poor argument.

lol, GROW A FUKKN BRAIN "LIBERAL" (lol)



The problem was that the survey [from the 2006 book “Who Really Cares” by Arthur C. Brooks] didn’t seem to accurately measure those categories and didn’t distinguish well between social conservatives or liberals and fiscal conservatives or liberals.

What the MIT researchers did find, however, was that conservatives give more to religious organizations, such as their own churches, and liberals more to secular recipients. Conservatives may give more overall, MIT says, but that’s because they tend to be richer, so they have more money to give and get a larger tax benefit from giving it.



...The bottom line, according to the MIT study, was that "liberals are no more or less generous than conservatives once we adjust for differences in church attendance and income."

Who s more charitable -- conservatives or liberals - latimes



Partisanship and Charitable Giving


Do conservatives give more to charity than liberals? Nope


P.S. Recently, Arthur Brooks has been having some trouble with the General Social Survey. Working with data can be difficult!

Economist s View Partisanship and Charitable Giving

Yeah, Arthur Brooks has been completely debunked:

Crackpot Doom Scandal Those Stingy Uncharitable Liberals

Great to see people can still make up stuff to argue against.

Wonder how this moron thinks that someone as dishonest (as he claims Brooks is) puts his data out for review.

He debunked nothing.

 

[candycorn]

One thing I get weary of is my friends on the left and their irrational hatred of nuclear power. If you accept that no endeavor is free from risk--and it is the truth; you should accept it--it should be impossible for you to at least not consider nuclear power as a viable alternative to fossil fuels.

On one hand, the petroleum fired plants use about 2 barrels of fuel a month per residence. I live in a fairly large condo and I use a little over 1,000 KWh per month. I assume others probably use more but set that as a baseline for everyone. So for every house, apartment, condo, you see, count 2 barrels of oil being burnt. That is all day, every day, with no end in sight. Coal is even worse. Air pollution contributes to urban blight, asthma, and the greenhouse effect.

Nuclear Power has almost no direct harmful emissions.

But is it safe? Most would be surprised to know we have about 100 reactors in the US with several dozen others throughout the world. Aside from Japan (which was caused by a tsunami) when was the last time you heard about one melting down? Probably Chernobyl....in the 1980's.

Where I would love to depend on solar and wind and tidal, the fact is that they are not ready and likely will never be ready. Nuke is ready now.

 

[Dad2three]

How about, the presidents are somehow responsible for the economy...directly.

They may have influence, but they don't pull levers and push buttons in such a way that they can actually dictate outcomes.

There is entire army of people behind the scenes...some not so far behind.

The PRZ is THE MOST responsible for the economy. Just look to Harding/Coolidge/Reagan/Dubya to see when you "don't believe in Gov't regulators" what happens!

So what was Obama's problem ?

The economy isn't as bad as some say......but it isn't that great for many......

Can the president single handedly cure income inequality ?

I've never really blamed (or credited) presidents for the economy. They can have an influence. Both Reagan and Clinton did.

Obama's problem? Hint 6 years of Dubya/GOP policy that gutted the middle class, took US tax revenues to Korean war levels and that Bankster credit bubble like 1880's and 1920's. You know, nothing left to work with after gutting everyone?

No Prez canon single handedly "cure" income equality but his policy IS number 1.

Yes, Ronnie ignoring regulator warnings on the S&L crisis in 1984, sure did hurt HWBush's economy right?

Just like Dubya ignoring the FBI and allowing the Banksters to run a ponzi scheme on US as he cheered them on and gave them ways to do it (forcing GSE's to buy their loans, $440 billion, gutted white collar crimes div of FBI, changing net cap rule so investment banks could triple their leverage in 2004 (all 5 gone today), yep, Prez policy matters!)

 

[Sun Devil 92]

How about, the presidents are somehow responsible for the economy...directly.

They may have influence, but they don't pull levers and push buttons in such a way that they can actually dictate outcomes.

There is entire army of people behind the scenes...some not so far behind.

The PRZ is THE MOST responsible for the economy. Just look to Harding/Coolidge/Reagan/Dubya to see when you "don't believe in Gov't regulators" what happens!

So what was Obama's problem ?

The economy isn't as bad as some say......but it isn't that great for many......

Can the president single handedly cure income inequality ?

I've never really blamed (or credited) presidents for the economy. They can have an influence. Both Reagan and Clinton did.

Obama's problem? Hint 6 years of Dubya/GOP policy that gutted the middle class, took US tax revenues to Korean war levels and that Bankster credit bubble like 1880's and 1920's. You know, nothing left to work with after gutting everyone?

No Prez canon single handedly "cure" income equality but his policy IS number 1.

Yes, Ronnie ignoring regulator warnings on the S&L crisis in 1984, sure did hurt HWBush's economy right?

Just like Dubya ignoring the FBI and allowing the Banksters to run a ponzi scheme on US as he cheered them on and gave them ways to do it (forcing GSE's to buy their loans, $440 billion, gutted white collar crimes div of FBI, changing net cap rule so investment banks could triple their leverage in 2004 (all 5 gone today), yep, Prez policy matters!)

And there wasn't a darn thing our Commander in Chief could do about it.

So thanks for making my point.

Presidents don't run the economy.

When it comes to Boooshman.....he wasn't near that smart. Nowhere close enough to pull something off like that. It wasn't his policy....he had all kinds of help.

Next.

 

[Sun Devil 92]

One thing I get weary of is my friends on the left and their irrational hatred of nuclear power. If you accept that no endeavor is free from risk--and it is the truth; you should accept it--it should be impossible for you to at least not consider nuclear power as a viable alternative to fossil fuels.

On one hand, the petroleum fired plants use about 2 barrels of fuel a month per residence. I live in a fairly large condo and I use a little over 1,000 KWh per month. I assume others probably use more but set that as a baseline for everyone. So for every house, apartment, condo, you see, count 2 barrels of oil being burnt. That is all day, every day, with no end in sight. Coal is even worse. Air pollution contributes to urban blight, asthma, and the greenhouse effect.

Nuclear Power has almost no direct harmful emissions.

But is it safe? Most would be surprised to know we have about 100 reactors in the US with several dozen others throughout the world. Aside from Japan (which was caused by a tsunami) when was the last time you heard about one melting down? Probably Chernobyl....in the 1980's.

Where I would love to depend on solar and wind and tidal, the fact is that they are not ready and likely will never be ready. Nuke is ready now.

How does that translate into your OP ?

Are you saying that facts about nuclear safety are not true ?

While I would agree....I am just asking what the fallacy is that you are identifying.

 

[Dad2three]

The purpose of this thread is to, hopefully, field engaging back and fourths between posters concerning "facts" that they know about theirs or "the other" side that can be shown to be wrong by a member of the other side. Nobody need bring up something to get it discussed--feel free to start us off if you like. Just speak in the macro for the purposes of this debate. For example, a lot of liberals think that conservatives do not give much to charity when there have been credible studies that show conservatives give a higher percentage of their personal wealth directly to charity. Now certainly, there are some conservatives that give more than others and some liberals give more than some conservatives so the statement isn't true in every case. Some liberals give more than all others and some conservatives give more than all others. The outcome I'm hoping for are some corrections to the conventional wisdom that, who knows, will perhaps be acknowledged by a member of the other side.

Again, you needn't wait for someone to bring up "Liberals are weak on defense" to post facts about how liberal presidents and congresses have supported the troops. Or if you're conservative, you needn't wait for "Conservatives care only about the rich" and point out how conservatives have shown care and concern for the poor.

The ground rules:

1) Again, for purposes of this debate, speak in the macro. You needn't point out that Warren Buffet and Bill Gates are philanthropists when discussing who gives more to the poor. Again, what we're doing here is, hopefully, dyspelling myths about "the other side" or your side. And, once more, you needn't take on the other side. You can definitely lambast what you see as conservatism or liberalism go where it was never needed. I personally think Pelosi's brand of liberalism is exactly what the DNC should be avoiding and, to their credit, they have done a good job centering the Party.

2) Feel free to let the fur fly. Just bring some light when you bring the heat.

3) Have fun. If you're running to the mod every day, you're not doing it right.

So, in conclusion.

By posting here,

You're hopefully dyspelling myths about your side or the other side. You're doing so in the macro, fully acknowledging that there are exceptions and that one liberal or conservative being a dork somewhere does not mean that all libs or cons are dorks.

You're fully entitled to tell someone they are nuts BUT please explain why they are nuts. One-liners are what the board is made up of but they don't belong here.

Your sink is thick enough to take it and your powder is dry enough to dish it out. Again try to be topical....dyspel myths.

Goals of this thread:

Gold Standard: You change minds.
Silver Standard: You gain acknowledgement (voiced or not) that your opponent has been moved off the mark.
Bronze Standard: You make a strong case and support your argument using well respected sources. You defend your case utilizing same.

Debunking the "Conservatives Give More to Charity" Myth.



Partisanship and Charitable Giving

Do conservatives give more to charity than liberals? Nope:

While levels of giving are roughly equivalent, liberals are much more likely to donate to secular organizations, and conservatives are more likely to donate to religious causes, especially their own congregation. ...




Economist s View Partisanship and Charitable Giving


Study: Conservatives and liberals are equally charitable, but they give to different charities

....no statistically significant relationship between peoples' political beliefs, or their partisan affiliation, and their charitable giving level.


Study Conservatives and liberals are equally charitable but they give to different charities - The Washington Post



Giving Differently: Liberals and Conservatives Have Radically Different Views of Charity

Republicans’ moral foundations are embedded in respect for authority and traditions, loyalty and purity


On the other side, Democrats’ moral foundations are rooted in equality and protection from harm, says Mittal...

Giving Differently Liberals and Conservatives Have Radically Different Views of Charity

Your sorry spamming ass really deserves no response. But since I look at your crapp from time to time (have to actually open it since you are on ignore for taking up so much bandwidth).

I am more liberal than I am conservative.

But this claim is what gives liberals a bad name (just like you do).

Here is the claim of the author

we demonstrate that these results are not robust, and appear to be driven by a non-traditional question wording for identifying liberals and conservatives. After correcting for this problem, there is no statistical difference between conservative and liberal giving,

How does he correct for the "problem". He never says.

Brooks laid all his data out there.

The author says he could never get his students to replicate Brooks data....to tired he said.

What a piss poor argument.

lol, GROW A FUKKN BRAIN "LIBERAL" (lol)



The problem was that the survey [from the 2006 book “Who Really Cares” by Arthur C. Brooks] didn’t seem to accurately measure those categories and didn’t distinguish well between social conservatives or liberals and fiscal conservatives or liberals.

What the MIT researchers did find, however, was that conservatives give more to religious organizations, such as their own churches, and liberals more to secular recipients. Conservatives may give more overall, MIT says, but that’s because they tend to be richer, so they have more money to give and get a larger tax benefit from giving it.



...The bottom line, according to the MIT study, was that "liberals are no more or less generous than conservatives once we adjust for differences in church attendance and income."

Who s more charitable -- conservatives or liberals - latimes



Partisanship and Charitable Giving


Do conservatives give more to charity than liberals? Nope


P.S. Recently, Arthur Brooks has been having some trouble with the General Social Survey. Working with data can be difficult!

Economist s View Partisanship and Charitable Giving

He does not give his measurements.

Sorry....spambot.....that's the way it is.

Brooks laid his data out there.

Really? LOL

From agit8er


Yeah, Arthur Brooks has been completely debunked:

..Next, let's examine the misuse of data in the book. Early in his most substantial and most quoted argument, he defines Religious Conservatives, Religious Liberals, Secular Conservatives, and Secular Liberals for the sake of his argument, altogether comprising 70% of the population of the United States. BUT, the data he cites as proof only accounts for 43% of the population [1]. Obviously there is enough missing data here to throw out the argument he makes entirely, without making an effort to debunk his logic, but in the section on outright lies I will gladly do so anyway.

Crackpot Doom Scandal Those Stingy Uncharitable Liberals



Arthur C. Brooks, Prez of AEI, yes, who would EVER think this Klown is honest?

The Hoover Institute study has been rebutted in several ways, primarily based on the inherent weaknesses of self-reporting of "religious participation" of those interviewed for the study, and the danger in associating such self-reported "church attendance" with "religious participation", depth of faith, or the tenets of the faith adhered to by the participant.

In addition to the potential logical flaws of the study, as an atheist I have always been a little suspect of common knowledge or studies which tend to support the "atheists have no moral compass" position of some religious adherents.


Charitable Giving and Religious Belief

 

[candycorn]

One thing I get weary of is my friends on the left and their irrational hatred of nuclear power. If you accept that no endeavor is free from risk--and it is the truth; you should accept it--it should be impossible for you to at least not consider nuclear power as a viable alternative to fossil fuels.

On one hand, the petroleum fired plants use about 2 barrels of fuel a month per residence. I live in a fairly large condo and I use a little over 1,000 KWh per month. I assume others probably use more but set that as a baseline for everyone. So for every house, apartment, condo, you see, count 2 barrels of oil being burnt. That is all day, every day, with no end in sight. Coal is even worse. Air pollution contributes to urban blight, asthma, and the greenhouse effect.

Nuclear Power has almost no direct harmful emissions.

But is it safe? Most would be surprised to know we have about 100 reactors in the US with several dozen others throughout the world. Aside from Japan (which was caused by a tsunami) when was the last time you heard about one melting down? Probably Chernobyl....in the 1980's.

Where I would love to depend on solar and wind and tidal, the fact is that they are not ready and likely will never be ready. Nuke is ready now.

How does that translate into your OP ?

Are you saying that facts about nuclear safety are not true ?

While I would agree....I am just asking what the fallacy is that you are identifying.

That the danger associated with Nuke is based on hysteria and an outsized standard. That the danger associated with nuclear waste is done likewise.

 

[Dad2three]

How about, the presidents are somehow responsible for the economy...directly.

They may have influence, but they don't pull levers and push buttons in such a way that they can actually dictate outcomes.

There is entire army of people behind the scenes...some not so far behind.

The PRZ is THE MOST responsible for the economy. Just look to Harding/Coolidge/Reagan/Dubya to see when you "don't believe in Gov't regulators" what happens!

So what was Obama's problem ?

The economy isn't as bad as some say......but it isn't that great for many......

Can the president single handedly cure income inequality ?

I've never really blamed (or credited) presidents for the economy. They can have an influence. Both Reagan and Clinton did.

Obama's problem? Hint 6 years of Dubya/GOP policy that gutted the middle class, took US tax revenues to Korean war levels and that Bankster credit bubble like 1880's and 1920's. You know, nothing left to work with after gutting everyone?

No Prez canon single handedly "cure" income equality but his policy IS number 1.

Yes, Ronnie ignoring regulator warnings on the S&L crisis in 1984, sure did hurt HWBush's economy right?

Just like Dubya ignoring the FBI and allowing the Banksters to run a ponzi scheme on US as he cheered them on and gave them ways to do it (forcing GSE's to buy their loans, $440 billion, gutted white collar crimes div of FBI, changing net cap rule so investment banks could triple their leverage in 2004 (all 5 gone today), yep, Prez policy matters!)

And there wasn't a darn thing our Commander in Chief could do about it.

So thanks for making my point.

Presidents don't run the economy.

When it comes to Boooshman.....he wasn't near that smart. Nowhere close enough to pull something off like that. It wasn't his policy....he had all kinds of help.

Next.

REALLY? Gawd you are slow, HINT THE EXECUTIVE BRANCH HAS F/F (GSE's) , HUD, SEC, FBI, etc

DUBYA FOUGHT ALL 50 STATE AG'S IN 2003, INVOKING A CIVIL WAR ERA RULE SAYING FEDS RULE ON "PREDATORY" LENDERS!

Dubya was warned by the FBI of an "epidemic" of mortgage fraud in 2004. He gave them less resources. Later in 2004 Dubya allowed the leverage rules to go from 12-1 to 33-1 which flooded the market with cheap money!


Q When did the Bush Mortgage Bubble start?

A The general timeframe is it started late 2004.

From Bush’s President’s Working Group on Financial Markets October 2008

“The Presidents Working Group’s March policy statement acknowledged that turmoil in financial markets clearly was triggered by a dramatic weakening of underwriting standards for U.S. subprime mortgages, beginning in late 2004 and extending into 2007.”


Bush's documented policies and statements in timeframe leading up to the start of the Bush Mortgage Bubble include (but not limited to)

Wanting 5.5 million more minority homeowners
Tells congress there is nothing wrong with GSEs
Pledging to use federal policy to increase home ownership
Routinely taking credit for the housing market
Forcing GSEs to buy more low income home loans by raising their Housing Goals (2003)
Lowering Investment bank's capital requirements, Net Capital rule (2004)
Reversing the Clinton rule that restricted GSEs purchases of subprime loans (2004)
Lowering down payment requirements to 0%
Forcing GSEs to spend an additional $440 billion in the secondary markets (2004)
Giving away 40,000 free down payments PER YEAR (2004-2007)
PREEMPTING ALL STATE LAWS AGAINST PREDATORY LENDING (2003)


But the biggest policy was regulators not enforcing lending standards.

FACTS on Dubya s great recession US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum



Right-wingers Want To Erase How George Bush's "Homeowner Society" Helped Cause The Economic Collapse


2004 Republican Convention:

Another priority for a new term is to build an ownership society, because ownership brings security and dignity and independence.
...

Thanks to our policies, home ownership in America is at an all- time high.

(APPLAUSE)

Tonight we set a new goal: 7 million more affordable homes in the next 10 years, so more American families will be able to open the door and say, "Welcome to my home."


June 17, 2004


Builders to fight Bush's low-income plan


NEW YORK (CNN/Money) - Home builders, realtors and others are preparing to fight a Bush administration plan that would require Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to increase financing of homes for low-income people, a home builder group said Thursday.


Home builders fight Bush's low-income housing - Jun. 17, 2004

 

[Sun Devil 92]

The purpose of this thread is to, hopefully, field engaging back and fourths between posters concerning "facts" that they know about theirs or "the other" side that can be shown to be wrong by a member of the other side. Nobody need bring up something to get it discussed--feel free to start us off if you like. Just speak in the macro for the purposes of this debate. For example, a lot of liberals think that conservatives do not give much to charity when there have been credible studies that show conservatives give a higher percentage of their personal wealth directly to charity. Now certainly, there are some conservatives that give more than others and some liberals give more than some conservatives so the statement isn't true in every case. Some liberals give more than all others and some conservatives give more than all others. The outcome I'm hoping for are some corrections to the conventional wisdom that, who knows, will perhaps be acknowledged by a member of the other side.

Again, you needn't wait for someone to bring up "Liberals are weak on defense" to post facts about how liberal presidents and congresses have supported the troops. Or if you're conservative, you needn't wait for "Conservatives care only about the rich" and point out how conservatives have shown care and concern for the poor.

The ground rules:

1) Again, for purposes of this debate, speak in the macro. You needn't point out that Warren Buffet and Bill Gates are philanthropists when discussing who gives more to the poor. Again, what we're doing here is, hopefully, dyspelling myths about "the other side" or your side. And, once more, you needn't take on the other side. You can definitely lambast what you see as conservatism or liberalism go where it was never needed. I personally think Pelosi's brand of liberalism is exactly what the DNC should be avoiding and, to their credit, they have done a good job centering the Party.

2) Feel free to let the fur fly. Just bring some light when you bring the heat.

3) Have fun. If you're running to the mod every day, you're not doing it right.

So, in conclusion.

By posting here,

You're hopefully dyspelling myths about your side or the other side. You're doing so in the macro, fully acknowledging that there are exceptions and that one liberal or conservative being a dork somewhere does not mean that all libs or cons are dorks.

You're fully entitled to tell someone they are nuts BUT please explain why they are nuts. One-liners are what the board is made up of but they don't belong here.

Your sink is thick enough to take it and your powder is dry enough to dish it out. Again try to be topical....dyspel myths.

Goals of this thread:

Gold Standard: You change minds.
Silver Standard: You gain acknowledgement (voiced or not) that your opponent has been moved off the mark.
Bronze Standard: You make a strong case and support your argument using well respected sources. You defend your case utilizing same.

Debunking the "Conservatives Give More to Charity" Myth.



Partisanship and Charitable Giving

Do conservatives give more to charity than liberals? Nope:

While levels of giving are roughly equivalent, liberals are much more likely to donate to secular organizations, and conservatives are more likely to donate to religious causes, especially their own congregation. ...




Economist s View Partisanship and Charitable Giving


Study: Conservatives and liberals are equally charitable, but they give to different charities

....no statistically significant relationship between peoples' political beliefs, or their partisan affiliation, and their charitable giving level.


Study Conservatives and liberals are equally charitable but they give to different charities - The Washington Post



Giving Differently: Liberals and Conservatives Have Radically Different Views of Charity

Republicans’ moral foundations are embedded in respect for authority and traditions, loyalty and purity


On the other side, Democrats’ moral foundations are rooted in equality and protection from harm, says Mittal...

Giving Differently Liberals and Conservatives Have Radically Different Views of Charity

Your sorry spamming ass really deserves no response. But since I look at your crapp from time to time (have to actually open it since you are on ignore for taking up so much bandwidth).

I am more liberal than I am conservative.

But this claim is what gives liberals a bad name (just like you do).

Here is the claim of the author

we demonstrate that these results are not robust, and appear to be driven by a non-traditional question wording for identifying liberals and conservatives. After correcting for this problem, there is no statistical difference between conservative and liberal giving,

How does he correct for the "problem". He never says.

Brooks laid all his data out there.

The author says he could never get his students to replicate Brooks data....to tired he said.

What a piss poor argument.

lol, GROW A FUKKN BRAIN "LIBERAL" (lol)



The problem was that the survey [from the 2006 book “Who Really Cares” by Arthur C. Brooks] didn’t seem to accurately measure those categories and didn’t distinguish well between social conservatives or liberals and fiscal conservatives or liberals.

What the MIT researchers did find, however, was that conservatives give more to religious organizations, such as their own churches, and liberals more to secular recipients. Conservatives may give more overall, MIT says, but that’s because they tend to be richer, so they have more money to give and get a larger tax benefit from giving it.



...The bottom line, according to the MIT study, was that "liberals are no more or less generous than conservatives once we adjust for differences in church attendance and income."

Who s more charitable -- conservatives or liberals - latimes



Partisanship and Charitable Giving


Do conservatives give more to charity than liberals? Nope


P.S. Recently, Arthur Brooks has been having some trouble with the General Social Survey. Working with data can be difficult!

Economist s View Partisanship and Charitable Giving

He does not give his measurements.

Sorry....spambot.....that's the way it is.

Brooks laid his data out there.

Really? LOL

From agit8er


Yeah, Arthur Brooks has been completely debunked:

..Next, let's examine the misuse of data in the book. Early in his most substantial and most quoted argument, he defines Religious Conservatives, Religious Liberals, Secular Conservatives, and Secular Liberals for the sake of his argument, altogether comprising 70% of the population of the United States. BUT, the data he cites as proof only accounts for 43% of the population [1]. Obviously there is enough missing data here to throw out the argument he makes entirely, without making an effort to debunk his logic, but in the section on outright lies I will gladly do so anyway.

Crackpot Doom Scandal Those Stingy Uncharitable Liberals



Arthur C. Brooks, Prez of AEI, yes, who would EVER think this Klown is honest?

The Hoover Institute study has been rebutted in several ways, primarily based on the inherent weaknesses of self-reporting of "religious participation" of those interviewed for the study, and the danger in associating such self-reported "church attendance" with "religious participation", depth of faith, or the tenets of the faith adhered to by the participant.

In addition to the potential logical flaws of the study, as an atheist I have always been a little suspect of common knowledge or studies which tend to support the "atheists have no moral compass" position of some religious adherents.


Charitable Giving and Religious Belief

Yep...read it.....

Nothing meaningful there....move along.

Brooks affiliations wee highly covered at the time...you clowns are nothing but that.

I am not a conservative.....I just hate how you act like you might actually know something of value.

 

[Sun Devil 92]

How about, the presidents are somehow responsible for the economy...directly.

They may have influence, but they don't pull levers and push buttons in such a way that they can actually dictate outcomes.

There is entire army of people behind the scenes...some not so far behind.

The PRZ is THE MOST responsible for the economy. Just look to Harding/Coolidge/Reagan/Dubya to see when you "don't believe in Gov't regulators" what happens!

So what was Obama's problem ?

The economy isn't as bad as some say......but it isn't that great for many......

Can the president single handedly cure income inequality ?

I've never really blamed (or credited) presidents for the economy. They can have an influence. Both Reagan and Clinton did.

Obama's problem? Hint 6 years of Dubya/GOP policy that gutted the middle class, took US tax revenues to Korean war levels and that Bankster credit bubble like 1880's and 1920's. You know, nothing left to work with after gutting everyone?

No Prez canon single handedly "cure" income equality but his policy IS number 1.

Yes, Ronnie ignoring regulator warnings on the S&L crisis in 1984, sure did hurt HWBush's economy right?

Just like Dubya ignoring the FBI and allowing the Banksters to run a ponzi scheme on US as he cheered them on and gave them ways to do it (forcing GSE's to buy their loans, $440 billion, gutted white collar crimes div of FBI, changing net cap rule so investment banks could triple their leverage in 2004 (all 5 gone today), yep, Prez policy matters!)

And there wasn't a darn thing our Commander in Chief could do about it.

So thanks for making my point.

Presidents don't run the economy.

When it comes to Boooshman.....he wasn't near that smart. Nowhere close enough to pull something off like that. It wasn't his policy....he had all kinds of help.

Next.

REALLY? Gawd you are slow, HINT THE EXECUTIVE BRANCH HAS F/F (GSE's) , HUD, SEC, FBI, etc

DUBYA FOUGHT ALL 50 STATE AG'S IN 2003, INVOKING A CIVIL WAR ERA RULE SAYING FEDS RULE ON "PREDATORY" LENDERS!

Dubya was warned by the FBI of an "epidemic" of mortgage fraud in 2004. He gave them less resources. Later in 2004 Dubya allowed the leverage rules to go from 12-1 to 33-1 which flooded the market with cheap money!


Q When did the Bush Mortgage Bubble start?

A The general timeframe is it started late 2004.

From Bush’s President’s Working Group on Financial Markets October 2008

“The Presidents Working Group’s March policy statement acknowledged that turmoil in financial markets clearly was triggered by a dramatic weakening of underwriting standards for U.S. subprime mortgages, beginning in late 2004 and extending into 2007.”


Bush's documented policies and statements in timeframe leading up to the start of the Bush Mortgage Bubble include (but not limited to)

Wanting 5.5 million more minority homeowners
Tells congress there is nothing wrong with GSEs
Pledging to use federal policy to increase home ownership
Routinely taking credit for the housing market
Forcing GSEs to buy more low income home loans by raising their Housing Goals (2003)
Lowering Investment bank's capital requirements, Net Capital rule (2004)
Reversing the Clinton rule that restricted GSEs purchases of subprime loans (2004)
Lowering down payment requirements to 0%
Forcing GSEs to spend an additional $440 billion in the secondary markets (2004)
Giving away 40,000 free down payments PER YEAR (2004-2007)
PREEMPTING ALL STATE LAWS AGAINST PREDATORY LENDING (2003)


But the biggest policy was regulators not enforcing lending standards.

FACTS on Dubya s great recession US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum



Right-wingers Want To Erase How George Bush's "Homeowner Society" Helped Cause The Economic Collapse


2004 Republican Convention:

Another priority for a new term is to build an ownership society, because ownership brings security and dignity and independence.
...

Thanks to our policies, home ownership in America is at an all- time high.

(APPLAUSE)

Tonight we set a new goal: 7 million more affordable homes in the next 10 years, so more American families will be able to open the door and say, "Welcome to my home."


June 17, 2004


Builders to fight Bush's low-income plan


NEW YORK (CNN/Money) - Home builders, realtors and others are preparing to fight a Bush administration plan that would require Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to increase financing of homes for low-income people, a home builder group said Thursday.


Home builders fight Bush's low-income housing - Jun. 17, 2004

Last answer from me spambot.

Your post proves my point again and again. I ignored you for a reason and I'm back to passing by the little blurb that tells me you've crapped another load onto a thread.

It's great how your heros and villans personify the workings of hundreds if not thousands of individuals.

Best of luck getting a life.

 

[Sun Devil 92]

One thing I get weary of is my friends on the left and their irrational hatred of nuclear power. If you accept that no endeavor is free from risk--and it is the truth; you should accept it--it should be impossible for you to at least not consider nuclear power as a viable alternative to fossil fuels.

On one hand, the petroleum fired plants use about 2 barrels of fuel a month per residence. I live in a fairly large condo and I use a little over 1,000 KWh per month. I assume others probably use more but set that as a baseline for everyone. So for every house, apartment, condo, you see, count 2 barrels of oil being burnt. That is all day, every day, with no end in sight. Coal is even worse. Air pollution contributes to urban blight, asthma, and the greenhouse effect.

Nuclear Power has almost no direct harmful emissions.

But is it safe? Most would be surprised to know we have about 100 reactors in the US with several dozen others throughout the world. Aside from Japan (which was caused by a tsunami) when was the last time you heard about one melting down? Probably Chernobyl....in the 1980's.

Where I would love to depend on solar and wind and tidal, the fact is that they are not ready and likely will never be ready. Nuke is ready now.

How does that translate into your OP ?

Are you saying that facts about nuclear safety are not true ?

While I would agree....I am just asking what the fallacy is that you are identifying.

That the danger associated with Nuke is based on hysteria and an outsized standard. That the danger associated with nuclear waste is done likewise.

While there is danger, I agree that Nuke is an option.

However, the last I heard, they are about 25% more costly than running a coal fired power plant. That seems hard to believe given that you have very little fuel to put in the front end.

But those are the numbers I've heard. Don't know where they even came from.