Liars
Seriously, what is it with Republicans and lying? Are you simply incapable of telling the truth? Well, I guess so. I mean, you all are evil and immoral, so I guess lying is second nature to you scum.
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ieuA7nAOBXQ[/youtube]
They lie because the press lets them get away with it.
But if Obama keeps on calling them liars, the media will have to take notice.
He did last night and in his Ad, and the media have taken notice. They are all calling Palin and McCain dishonest now.
A lie only works when the recipient wants to believe it.
Americans will be not be ready to stop believing Republican lies until all the credit and Ponzi schemes finally dry up and the standard of living crashes.
We are well on our way.
Obama has told his fair share of blatant lies. Politicians lie, even the Messiah.
Messiah? Eugene Robinson agrees…
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/09/08/AR2008090801910.html
Robinson is discussing McCain’s acceptance speech. It’s an acceptance speech, meaning it’s supposed to be about the candidate, his accomplishments, and patting himself on the back.
Obama has told some blatant lies lately, and he’s still trying to convince Pennsylvanian’s he won’t come after their guns.
Where, Mike? Where are the lies?
Mike’s a gun fetishist.
Ah guns . . .
Mike W, why do you always call Obama, the Messiah? His name is Barack Obama or Sen. Obama.
You know, I don’t mind Mike W not using a proper address of Sen. Obama.
In that light, I’m going to start using the nicknames “Old Fuck” and “Whacko Bitch” for the republican nominees.
Obama to Pennyslvania – “I’m not going to take away your guns.”
http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2008/09/05/obama-im-not-going-to-take-your-guns-away/
Obama said,
“If you’ve got a gun in your house, I’m not taking it.”
“Even if I want to take them away, I don’t have the votes in Congress,’’….. “This can’t be the reason not to vote for me.
Even if I want to take them away I don’t have the votes in Congress? In other words he’s flat out lying. If he can get the votes he’ll gladly fuck over PA gun owners.
He’s wrong. It can and will be a reason not to vote for him because, among other things, it shows blatant dishonesty.
Either you want to take them away or you don’t. Given that he and Biden are on record calling for renewal of the 94′ AWB, he advocates banning CCW nationwide, and banning FFL’s within 5 miles of any school or park I’d say his record brings clarity to his statements.
http://www.sportsmenforobama.org/content/view/53/35/
By the same token, why do you folks always call McCain “McSame?
I don’t
90% of the time is an appropriate sample of what he’d be as POTUS, whereas the messiah thing is projection based on fear and loathing.
Not really any substance with that ‘insult’. Actually, it says more about the person who says it.
Lies? Where are the lies, Mike?
Mikey: Your whole “Obama is going to take my guns” schtick is dishonest.
You probably know it is as well.
The fact is there is not one organization that advocates a total gun ban. Your attempts to label reasonable gun control as “gun-grabbing” or the like is dishonest and not just a little silly.
Even Fat Tony Scalia said the 2A was no bar to gun control measures such as banning machine guns or keeping guns out of the hands of felons or licensing and registration. Are you going to paint Fat Tony as a “gun grabber” too?
“The fact is there is not one organization that advocates a total gun ban.”
Right, and according to you citizens are free to keep & bear arms in D.C. and Chicago. Oh wait! They’re NOT. In fact we may as well strike “bear” from the Amendment as it applies to D.C., NJ, IL, and MD
Hell, Obama lied about his selective service application (or lack thereof). and this was just a few days ago.
However, the real beauty of Senator Barack Hussein Obama (since we are so concerned with the proper terminology), and I do mean this seriously, is that he does not typically have to lie, simply because he almost never gives definitive enough answers. He never paints himself into a corner, because all of his responses and stances can be interpreted this way and that way and up and down and inside out. He truly is masterful at that, and that is part of the reason he would make a positively terrifying President.
Has anyone seen this article about the lying lunatic? http://www.time.com/time/politics/article/0,8599,1839724,00.html
Interesting take on the nutjobs who lie about thier records.
These 2 statements were made at the same time, despite being wildly inconsistent with one another. In the real world we’d call this a lie. (particularly given his record on the issue) If you have no intention of taking folks guns why the 2nd comment about not having the votes in Congress to do so?
“If you’ve got a gun in your house, I’m not taking it.”
“Even if I want to take them away, I don’t have the votes in Congress,’’…..
Von – Reading would help.
I just read those so-called lies very carefully. Obama said he IS NOT, because of Congressional support, taking guns. He didn’t said his desire was to not take this action. He says as much in the follow up. How is that dishonest again? It seems very clear and pragmatic. Just because you disagree doesn’t make it a lie.
“If you’ve got a gun in your house, I’m not taking it.”
-(then he goes on to further explian the statement… even if I want to I can’t)
Again, you’re a clown. I see no dishonesty here at all.
huh?
what dg said.
Where are the lies, folks?
Looks like Mike W is a liar. Which is not surprising, since he is a Republican.
Obama has yet to tell the truth about what he plans to do to the taxes of those households that make over $76,000 (remember, only those under that mark are “working families”). He was, once again, a stammering mess when asked about that yesterday.
Constantly flip-flopping on issues (campaign finance, the War, guns, drilling etc), and telling one side what they want to hear, and then telling the other side something else is the same as lying. Obama has been doing that for months.
Oh, and here is the selective service answer Linoge. He did get the timeframe wrong but he didn’t lie about signing up for selective service.
http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/obama-did-obama-actually-register-for-selective-service/2/
Digby – The figures have been published in great detail in The NY Times Sunday magazine, Fortune magazine, The Economist… if you haven’t educated yourself with the details by now I don’t see how anything will help.
“Looks like Mike W is a liar. Which is not surprising, since he is a Republican.”
He says “I’m not going to take your guns.” Yet he proposes banning CCW nationwide, banning all gun shops within 5 miles of a school or park, renewing the AWB, banning all semi-auto’s etc. etc. Hmmm, his words aren’t the least bit inconsistent with his actions, not at all…..
He knows his record and previous statements all indicate that he’ll take folks guns, but he needs PA so now he’s saying “folks, you’ve got nothing to worry about, I’m not coming for your guns.”
His statement is 100% at odds with everything he’s said and done in the past. If a life-long active KKK member came out and said to a group of blacks “you’ve got nothing to worry about,” would you expect those folks to believe him? Of course not. Given what we know PA gun owners would be stupid to consider Obama’s statement even remotely truthful.
Digby,
Where the hell are you digging your thoughts from. Obama has been quite clear that he would only raise INCOME taxes on those making over $200K individual or $250K couple. Which is upper middle class. Also, he would only bring them in line with where the tax rate was under Clinton.
He will raise the tax rate on capital gains which potentially could affect those making under $200K but only in a diminishing return sort of way since the less money you make the less you have to invest in stocks etc. Once again the rate would be the same as under Clinton.
Man the 90’s economy must have sucked for you but it was damn good for America and most Americans. Actually, since job growth occurs at almost double the rate when a democrat is president versus a republithug you might consider that issue.
Von Cracker, you are so quick to bring up the “90% of the time” argument. Do you even know why so many conservatives were outraged by the McCain victory in the primary?
He has shown that he is willing to go against the GOP. (Immigration, McCain-Feingold, twice voting against the Bush tax cuts etc. etc.) He has shown that he will cross the aisle. He has shown that he votes the way HE sees fit. When has Obama (the MOST liberal member of the Senate) done that? What proof is there that he will be anything but ONE way all of the time!? When has he crossed the aisle?
Again, he is THE MOST LIBERAL MEMBER OF THE SENATE and his VP is NUMBER THREE!!!
“He will raise the tax rate on capital gains which potentially could affect those making under $200K”
Yup, even though we know that raising Capital Gains Tax decreases overall investment AND decreases overall tax revenues. Of course Obama won’t let pesky facts get in the way of his ideology. Not to mention that raising Capital Gains means he IS taxing the middle class, even though he says he’s not.
Here dig
and Here
You must have not tried real hard…lazy.
Quoting the national review who’s liberal-er rankings now, huh?
Wasn’t Kerry the “mostest liberalest” in 2004?
Wudda crock! and you’re a fool – better yet – a know-nothing Parrot!
The only outrage came from the SkyDad freaks!
We see Palin got them in line, right?
Wow Digby,
Can’t even reason out your own argument but just change the topic to something you think you can win. Typical nutcase. If McCain voted with Bush 90% of the time then he only crossed Bush 10% of the time. These are things called facts. It doesn’t matter what the topics were that McCain crossed Bush but rather the fact that if he was a true independent he would have crossed Bush more often or sponsored legislation against the president more often. But he can’t go against his own party.
Obama is a democrat and voted with his party not out of the need to display independence but due to the fact that he agreed with the stance. If you want to argue judgement that is fine but just saying he is liberal as oppossed to McSame being conservative doesn’t mean anything.
Finally, there have been multiple comments on when Obama crossed the aisle to work with others so if you are that naive I suggest you look that up before you spout out further nonsense.
Where are the lies? ….not under here….not in Iraq….hehe
and it’s 95% in 2008! suckin the teet of electability now, huh?
Wow Mike,
90’s must have been rough for you too. I did pretty well and according to all economic statistics so did the economy and business. Shame that those tax rates were in place then to totally eliminate your argument about it negatively impacting the economy.
Next time try to read the whole post before you spout nonsense.
Von – Refusing to acknowledge lies doesn’t make them go away.
DG, I’ve downloaded and read the “Blueprint for America.” (You know the document in which Obama explains how he is going to fix all of our country’s problems.) He is very frank and clear about his proposed tax cuts and eliminations (for the poor and elderly). He is very clear when discussing the taxes of the nation’s wealthiest folks. However, I found the rest of the document very vague and convoluted when discussing the taxes of the majority of America’s middle class.
He has yet to give a straight answer on what he plans to do to my taxes.
Fair enough, Phantom, though he did get the date wrong. Of course, I only remember when I signed up for Selective Service simply because it was my senior year of high school. On the other hand, this was a relatively big thing for him, since the laws were changing about him at the time. *shrug*
Mike,
I am nearly 40 years old and have never had to pay capital gains tax. Last year I also earned dividends on the individual stocks I own in excess of three dollars, tax free baby. Go Bush, let it trickle on down to me.
“An analysis by the non-partisan Annenberg Political Fact Check that found that the gross tax increase would amount to $103.3 billion in 2011, the largest single-year tax increase since World War II. The Annenberg study pointed out, however, that “most economists” prefer to measure tax changes as a percentage of gross national product, in which case it would be the fifth largest increase since 1943.”
On a slightly related note, I finally found the webpage my mother told me about a few days ago… PolitiFact.com. As you can plainly see, Senator Barack Hussein Obama is not above lying or stretching the truth either, though, to be fair, McCain has more “Pants on Fire” moments than Obama.
Either way, my core point still stands: Politicians lie. It does not matter what side of whatever fence they are on, every last one of them still does it. It is not acceptable, granted, but singling out one politician or one political group for perceived lies is just stupid at best, hypocritical at worst.
“According to Brookings economist Douglas Elmendorf, the Obama plan will eliminate income taxes for 10 million Americans. “It’s very clear that taxes for lower income Americans will decline under Obama,” he said.”
I don’t fall into this category, nor do I make over $250,000. So, again, what does Barry plan to do to my taxes?
Obama plans on raising the cap. gains tax to 28%. Just because you never paid it, doesn’t mean that you won’t have to. Obama keeps claiming how he is going to cut the taxes of the elderly. Well, tax breaks are only going to be for the elderly making less than $50,000 per. Many elderly Americans rely on the money that they will make from the sale of their homes for their retirements. That will all change however under Barry’s plan. The gov’t will be taking 28% of the money that you make from the sale of your home…money that many Americans put away or towards retirement communities etc. This is going to have serious negative implications for many retirement-aged Americans.
Digby you greedy SOB. You didn’t get enough from Bush to hold you for a while?
Lino’s point is one that Republicans have used to their advantage.
All politicians lie, so pick the Republican who is clearly lying but also talks tough on terrorism.
Our political discourse rocks!
It has nothing to do with greed and everything to do with wanting to keep more of the money you’ve earned.
I think we should abolish capital gains tax alltogether.
It has nothing to do with greed…
Yes it does.
Mikey: In your own words, define ‘capital gain.’
Mike – making a quipy statement won’t make you appear smart! – See? That was easy!
Lies? Anyone?
Oh, yeah. Barry is also planning on taking about 40% of my IRA. This is money that has already been taxed once before I invested it, and if I am fortunate enough to make any money on my investments, Barry wants 40% of that too.
Digby,
I would say essentially nothing in terms of the tax rate. Same as McSame is proposing except for those making under $5 million a year and not raising the capital gains tax rate. Obama is proposing more tax rebates for anyone making under $200K that would decrease your adjusted gross income in a variety of ways and potentially offers more economic stimulus of $1,000 per person.
However, we have to realize that with a deficit that grows at 150% or more per year we might have to make some adjustments to pay for the interest on that debt. And it is only a tax increase b/c Bush lowered the tax rates from Clinton during which time these tax rates were proven to actually help the economy.
Linoge,
Politicians lie but McSame and Nutcase lie outrageously and then keep repeating the same lies over and over again even after they have been disproved. It is that egregious violation that prompted this type of post.
I’m just curious why no one of you has mentioned that Palin is directly responsible for higher gas prices that we pay. She is the one who setup a windfall profits tax to pay Alaska for thier oil revenues (oil they sell to the government which pays with all of our money.).
In simple terms
A profit made on the sale of personal assets.
Lies? Anyone?
– You mean the ones you ignore?
Barry also wants to tax natural resource consumption, big homes, gas etc. etc. However, with all of that being said, DG, I still don’t know what he plans to do with my income tax.
So, how has anyone ‘earned’ money on these sold assets?
It’s out there Digby….go find it yerself, you lazy contrarian you!
“then keep repeating the same lies over and over again even after they have been disproved.”
You mean like Obama’s lies about criminals and “assault weapons” or his lies about how gun control “works” so well in Chicago?
“So, how has anyone ‘earned’ money on these sold assets?”
By selling your assets for a profit. Duh.
Where Mike? Nothing you provided proves a lie.
Mikey: If gun control has been a failure in Chicago, why has that city’s homicide rate for each of the past 15 years?
So, ‘selling’ is earning?
Hmm how about saying he thought the DC gun ban was Constitutional, then saying after it was struck down that he’s always believed in an individual 2A right and thought the SCOTUS made the right decision?
Blatant enough lie for you?
Selling for a profit is earning Jade – How dumb are you?
mike w, Bush thinks that torture is Constiutional.
Check that, Rebpulicans think that torture is Consititutional.
I guess I shouldn’t even continue this discussion. I am in a DINK situation. My wife is a highly paid professional, as am I – no kids. We live in a modest home and are even considering downsizing that. I pay a considerable tax and frankly don’t care if I pay 5-8% more. I won’t actually but I wouldn’t care if I did. And I don’t care what you call it. Tax my capital gains a little more, tax my estate when I die. Shit tax my parent’s estate, they’re flush and I don’t need it (I didn’t earn it afterall)… I could get by on much less so I really don’t care. But I’d prefer to get by on much less in a liberal culture rather than a conservative one. Frankly I find conservatives and republicans dour and boring. But again I am in the minority clearly. Take an extra few bucks, who gives a shit. Build a bridge, fix an airport, pay teachers more, build windfarms, sponsor some artist to do something interesting…
You all can continue the economic discussion now.
RE 65 –
How’s that gun ban working for Chicago? The murder rate is up 18% over last year.
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/chi-chicago-murders-upaug07,0,260187.story
Dorian – Just because YOU don’t mind giving up more of your income doesn’t mean everyone else feels the same way.
VC,
With Mike it is all about guns. Obama obviously lied about guns b/c he is a democrat and therefore is against all guns.
Mike,
On what items do you make a profit for personal assets? If you mean homes then you are forgetting the abilty to exclude the profit from a certain number of homes. Otherwise you must mainly be focusing on investments done by an idividual (not an IRA or 401K) which usually leads to stocks, bonds, etc. Once again this rate will just go back to what it was during the 90’s and the economy sure didn’t collapse at that point.
“Once again this rate will just go back to what it was during the 90’s and the economy sure didn’t collapse at that point.”
I wasn’t claiming that the economy did/would collapse, only that Obama does support a Tax INCREASE whether he’s willing to admit it or not.
Obama on guns – Yes he is and yes he does.
My understanding of capital gains tax on the sale of a primary residence is, like the “death tax,” it doesn’t kick in until a certain dollar amount of profit has been realized.
A profit of $500k per couple before a single capital gains tax dollar is assessed. That seems reasonable to me.
Well, seeing as how you are too lazy to click on links…
Lie: “The fact is that although we have had a president who is opposed to abortion over the last eight years, abortions have not gone down.”
Lie: Oil companies “haven’t touched” 68 million acres where they already have rights to drill.
Lie: John McCain refuses to support a new bipartisan energy bill “because it would take away tax breaks from oil companies like Exxon Mobil.”
Lie: The U.S. government spends less on energy innovation “than the pet food industry invests in its own products.”
Lie: “I think we came down here (to Florida) one time … but we weren’t actively fundraising here.”
Lie: “We are bogged down in a war that John McCain now suggests might go on for another 100 years.”
Lie: “As has been noted by many observers, including Bill Clinton’s former secretary of labor, my plan does more than anybody to reduce costs.”
Who said all these things? Senator Barack Hussein Obama. And this is not even venturing into his “Barely True” and “Half True” areas.
Also, DPN, McCain is and always has been against torture. What was that about lying…?
Dorian, I guess we are just at opposite mindset extremes… I dislike how much of my tax money is being wasted already, and would absolutely hate it if my tax rate were to go up. If you want to pay more, feel free, but try not to make the rest of us.
Lies? Anyone? I heard something about guns and the 2A…not really a lie, but a position/opinion, but, alas, no lies.
Come ON, Stenographers! Think and do some research for yourself for once! Give me some Obama lies!
The poor don’t pay taxes. This is a lie. I work for H&R Block and I can attest to this fact. Ever hear of the EIC (earned income credit)? You get thousands of dollars “back” as a refund when you didn’t pay into the system in the first place! I’m all for the poor and working poor not having to pay income taxes – even the lower middle class. But why are we giving them money back that they never paid in? That’s an entitlement program – welfare at it’s finest!
And yes, I “earned” the equity in my home by struggling every month to pay my mortgage on time. I (along with my neighbors) put the effort and moeny into keeping our properties and surrounding community in nice shape so that our property values don’t fall. Yes, I “earned” that money! And I earned the money that allowed me to buy it in the first place!
Phantom: Sorry, missed your comment. You cannot honestly say, with a straight face, that both sides of the spectrum do not do the same thing. Find one thing, ride it out until it deflates or falls apart, and then find something else. Maybe the difference is the political candidates themselves do more of it on the Republican side of the fence than the Democrat, but the supporters on the Democrat side more than make up for that…
Von – Explain, in detail, how Obama’s 2A statements I discussed aren’t lies.
Also, how is saying the DC ban is Constitutional and then saying the SCOTUS was right to declare in Unconstitutional not a lie?
If you can’t tell already, I am trying to do my best “mike w.” imitation. 😀
don’t have time for detail. Just suck on it!
Since Linoge is too dishonest:
The fact is that although we have had a president who is opposed to abortion over the last eight years, abortions have not gone down.”
In reality, the abortion rate has remained constant since 2000. In 2003-04, there was a 1.1% drop in the rate but this still represented an actual increase in terms of numbers.
Oil companies “haven’t touched” 68 million acres where they already have rights to drill.
True statement.
John McCain refuses to support a new bipartisan energy bill “because it would take away tax breaks from oil companies like Exxon Mobil.”
True statement.
LOL!
Ha! The debunker has been debunked!
From Mikey’s cite:
Weis cautioned then that the 13 percent increase would still keep Chicago within range of historical lows in the last four years. But if trends from the first seven months continue the rest of the year, Chicago would finish with more than 500 murders for the first time since 2003. That year, Chicago had more than 600 murders.
So, Mikey, Chicago’s gun laws have been in place for 20 years. Why have Chicago homicide rates dropped each year for the past 15 years?
I see that Von Cracker is not the only one who is too lazy to follow links indicating not only supporting information, but evidence, proof, and enumeration of all of the details.
Of course, one can hardly expect some people to give up their precious bubbles… it is probably the only thing keeping them sane.
For example:
From here. As I said, it was a lie, as was everything else I listed in my second-previous post, and even more.
Poor Linoge. He still misrepresents the facts.
Content deleted by moderator.
But why are we giving them money back that they never paid in?
Heh. This is how they get them to vote Republican. Every GOP tax cut comes with an increase in EITC. It is a Republican buy-off.
Linoge,
Thank you for the link as other links were not displaying. However, politifact is trying to turn something into black and white when there are shades of gray. Reading a few of the analyses they immediately grade it a lie when it was a valid point.
Case in point on the oil drilling. Politifact even states that the only land that is considered active is land that has is currently being drilled. Therefore there are 68 million acres which do not have drills for one reason or another. If you interpret haven’t touched as they have not produced anything out of 68 million acres then the statement is completely TRUE.
I’m with DG on this one. I don’t mind paying taxes. What I would like is to get something for my taxes. I want affordable healthcare and daycare. I want our infrastructure repaired. I want to not saddle my kids with tens of thousands of dollars in student loans.
Why do Republicans paint these things as “radical”? Seems pretty basic to me.
Ahhh..Linoge’s version of reasoned discourse: censor opponents.
Just as Palin sought to ban books.
Except, Phantom, it is not a valid point. If the land is inaccessible, undrillable, or otherwise useless to the oil companies, simply leaving it as “they have not touched it” is blatantly misleading. That would be akin to you saying that I have not touched 90% of the land I hypothetically own, so I obviously do not have the right to purchase more. Of course, that 90% of my land is covered with boulders the size of small buildings, rocky crags, and inaccessible bluffs, but you leave those convenient little details out. The people listening to you tell them this would immediately draw the wrong conclusion (aided, in no little part, by you), and thus would be lied to by omission.
What Obama did was no different.
Furthermore, the site has varying degrees of truths and lies… Just take a poke around. Hell, as I said before, McCain has more strikes against him than Obama, at this point.
If the land is useless, Linoge, then they should give up the leases.
Why? If they want to own it, pay the taxes on it, and sit on it for whatever reason they so desire, who are you (or anyone else) to tell them otherwise? It surely seems kind of stupid (even to me), but if they want to use their money as they see fit, I am not going to stand in their way.
Problem is, there really isn’t any land that’s inaccessible to drilling.
Come on, Linoge. You’re acting like the oil companies threw a dart at a map and then purchased the land on a whim – that they are keeping “useless” land for no reason other than they can.
If you believe that, then I have a bridge I’d like to sell you…
Linoge,
I was stating that the actual statement was true. The oil companies are in the process of working on developing rigs for that land but at present do not have them installed. Since Obama’s premise was that they should drill where it is already permitted prior to opening up new areas is TRUE (they are not drilling on 68 million acres) then the best you might be able to say is that the statement was disingenous but not a lie. My dispute with politifact is that it doesn’t offer shades of gray in its visual display unlike the Washington Post with the pinnochios.
Jade – If Chicago’s gun ban is working so well why has the Governor called violent crime “out of control” not 2 months ago? Why has he considered calling on the State Police & National Guard to help fight Chicago’s crime? Why has he felt it necessary to arm them with full-auto M4’s? With all that gun control and a handgun ban Chicago should be a gun-free, crime-free utopia right?
http://www.suntimes.com/news/metro/1060701,CST-NWS-blago17.article
I guess we just see mistruths different ways, Phantom. To me, a lie of omission (either Obama omitted that the oil companies are working on using the land, they simply have not put bits in the ground; or he omitted that the land was not usable to the companies) is still a lie. Disingenu0us, to be certain. But still a lie.
And I am not really following you on the visual display quibble… The WaPo uses different numbers of pinnochiolets, PolitiFact uses meters that point to “Pants on Fire” (my favorite), “False”, “Barely True”, “Half True”, “Mostly True”, and “True”. Hell, they even have icons for “Half-Flip” and “Full Flop”.
Again, Mikey, you keep dodging the question: if Chicago’s gun control has been such a failure–why has Chicago’s homicide numbers been dropping each year for the past 15 years?
I realize you have no NRA-sanctioned response other than to avoid the question but you’d think that if Chicago’s policies were such a failure, the homicide numbers would have gone up over the past 20+ years.
BTW, I note gunloons don’t mention NYC which has similar gun control laws and a declining homicide rate.
Jade – You do realize that violent crime rates in the entire US have dropped in the last 20+ years?
Notice the downward trend?
http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/05cius/data/table_01.html
Why is “gun free” Chicago experiencing a spike in killings this summer when the rest of the country has a downward trending violent crime rate?
Manonman. What a pathetic parody this “site” has become. Not that it was ever a bastion of sensible political commentary in the first place. All evil and immoral? All scum? DelDem couldn’t debate his fucking way out of a paper bag, even debating NOBODY. What an asshole.
You’re soon destined to become even more of a parody once DE Talk Radio gets underway, too.
“Why is “gun free” Chicago experiencing a spike in killings this summer when the rest of the country has a downward trending violent crime rate?”
Global warming?
Geez, Mikey, you really won’t answer the question–will you?
You stated–repeatedly–that gun control in Chicago was an abject failure. When pressed for an answer as to why Homicide numbers in Chicago have declined each year for the past 15 years, you keep dodging the question. Now, you seem to be admitting it isn’t a failure.
WHERE ARE THE LIES?!?!?
McCain’s gay.
^ or so his viet cong handlers told me….
prove I’m wrong…double dong dare ya!
Instead of lame Van Halen, they should play that Black Flag Rollins song…what’s the name of that again…?
Or how about this oldie, but a goodie…
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-x3TMBeX-ws
Heh – the tommy thompson twins!
hold. me. now.
The Chicago gun ban has been in effect for over 25 years. While the murder rate is lower than it was 15 years ago when it started a decline, it declined slower than the national average.
The fact is that the murder rate is still 3x higher than the national average and 5-6x higher than the rest of the state.
Current rates will put it at well over 500 for the year.
Note that it took over 10 years for murder rates to start dropping. Not exactly a good indicator of an effective law.
Exactly. violent crime has been declining NATIONWIDE despite a general loosening of gun laws in most of the U.S. (almost all states now allow Open Carry and Shall-Issue CCW permits) It would make sense then that crime would also trend downward slightly in Chicago.
If Chicago gun control was the success JadeGold says it is we’d see violent crime in Chicago dropping consistently from 1980 – 2008, including during times where crime was NOT declining nationwide. Seeing crime drop in Chicago during times where it stayed constant or went UP nationally might prove the efficacy of Chicago’s gun ban. No such drop occurred.
FBI UCR data states that rifles are used in ~5% of gun crimes, meaning the overwhelming majority are committed with handguns.
Wouldn’t it then make sense that we should have seen HUGE reductions in violent crime rates in Chicago after they banned handguns? Wouldn’t one expect to see a huge and obvious decrease in violent crime in Chicago from 1980 onward compared to the rest of Illinois (where handguns are legal?)
Shouldn’t we have also seen an immediate, dramatic, and unquestionable decrease in violent crime in D.C. after they banned handguns AND functional long guns in 1976?
Isn’t the entire rationale for gun control predicated upon it’s efficacy of lowering crime rates? Pro-gun folks don’t have to show that more guns = less crime. Our rights are our rights, as such we have no obligation to prove anything. Anti-rights proponents however DO have to prove that restrictions on rights will benefit public safety. They have been unable to prove this.
Hey, Mr. Anti-Ban,
Where’s your outrage when it comes to “outlawing” abortion? You’ve repeatedly said you’re pro-choice… so where’s your outrage? Just looking for some consistency. AND, if you’re truly anti-banning, you should be sitting out this election or voting for a 3rd party candidate. But you’re not… are you?
I see another clueless gunloon offers up yet another dodge to my question. His evasion is easily answered by: look at New Orleans.
New Orleans and Louisiana have little or no gun control. Yet, NOLA’s murder rate is climbing–even pre-Katrina. In fact, in 2004, NOLA’s murder rate was nearly 4X Chicago’s. Today, NOLA’s murder rate is over 6X Chicago’s.
If we are talking about effectiveness of laws, it seems NOLA’s is definitely not working–while Chicago is, at the very least, headed in the right direction.
Of course, nobody wants to talk about NYC’s gun control laws. Why? Because has about the same crime rate as Boise, ID.
Mikey: Get thee to a statistics course.
I see Mike W is still playing with his gun while pulling his pud. Come out of the bathroom mike what’s taking you so long in there.
“little or no gun control” in NOLA?
According to whom? By what definition?
That same place that had a certain natural disaster and a historically corrupt police force?
Let’s talk about NYC. It’s murder rate is great for a major metropolis. They also have LESS restrictive laws than Chicago but are still 3x that of the rest of the state where laws are even less restrictive than the city. There’s also this little thing called CompStat and an addition of thousands of officers to the beat rolls. No NYC or Chicago “gun control” law correlates w/ the decrease in crime. But that will never be discussed now will it?
Another deflection; it’s the Vinnie Barbarino defense: what? where? when?
Pretty typical. When a touchy point is made, the gunloon will immediately switch to another topic.
Translation:
“I’ve got nothing to respond w/ so I’ll throw out insults and red herrings. ”
Pretty typical.
What Translation? Who Red Herring? Where Typical?
Do you know that John McCain and Sarah Palin are liars?
Really, you didn’t! wow.
Pretty typical. When a touchy point is made, Jadegold will immediately switch to another topic.
Watch. He’ll avoid it again.
“Do you know that John McCain and Sarah Palin are liars?
Really, you didn’t! wow.”
Did you know Obama & Biden are liars?
like how this post turned into a gun fight?
Yeah, that’s it…
you lose on unoriginality!
kcidakcusog
peace out!
Jade – Since rifles are only used in ~5% of gun crimes nationally shouldn’t we expect a handgun ban in Chicago to cause a huge decrease in violent crime, especially given the ban has been in place for 28 years?
If guns (especially handguns) are the problem and gun control is the solution shouldn’t a handgun ban eliminate the huge majority of gun crime in Chicago? (or D.C., or pretty much anywhere for that matter?)
Mikey: Think before you post. And, seriously, you really need to take a basic survey course on probability and statistics. I’m not writing this in a pejorative manner; you’re really asking some pretty uninformed questions.
First, you’re assuming gun control has been tried. It really hasn’t. You can own a gun in DC or Chicago or NYC. Your big gripe is it may not be the gun you want or fantasize about.
Second, you assume that if one bans all guns in a certain geographic area that there isn’t any chance they’ll find their way into that particular area from surrounding areas.
Third, you steadfastly ignore the fact Chicago’s homicide numbers have been declining for the past 15 years. Why? The answer is you’d rather be dishonest and cherrypick.
Fourth, you discount the converse to your argument: if gun control laws are such a failure–then locales without such laws must have great success in reducing crime. Yet, the fact is cities like Detroit, NOLA, Houston and Miami–where gun control is pretty non-existent–have exploding crime rates.
Fifth, rifles are part of the crime picture. Pretending they aren’t is pretty ludicrous.
1. “Own a gun”. Sure, if you jump through the hoops, have permission, and pick out one of the few they allow. Can we say “Defacto” boys and girls?
2. Yet the areas they’re coming from aren’t having the same problems. Go figure.
3. For 15 years. Not 25+ which is the timeframe of the handgun ban. Something you steadfastly ignore. Why? Because to look at the whole timeperiod wouldn’t support your claim. That’s known as ‘cherrypicking’. Kind of like:
4. Your If not A then B is a false dichotomy using more cherry picked cities and ignoring factors you don’t like. Once again you refuse to define ‘non-existent’.
5. They are a part. A small part. Pretending they’re more is pretty ludicrous.
Ooooh, it’s toooo hard to be responsible. I might have to fill out paperwork and risk stabbing myself with a pen.
“Ooooh, it’s toooo hard to be responsible. I might have to fill out paperwork and risk stabbing myself with a pen.”
Yeah, kind of like the Alderman (and FIL of the Governor) in Chicago who forgot to re-register his guns then got a law passed to allow him to . Think he would have gotten it passed for anyone else?
But Jade wouldn’t be trying to change the subject now would he?
You already did.
Sorry you can’t address the question any better than Mikey.
That’s right. I changed the subject. I showed that you can own a gun in Chicago if you have connections, making it much more than “filling out paperwork”. Just one example.
Answering his allegations and questions w/ evidence is “changing the topic” in Jade’s mind.
I guess I should have used less a less confusing method of doing it and smaller words so Jade could follow along.
Let’s see; we went from “ZOMG, Obama is going to take away all our guns and make our daughters marry Mr. T!?!”
to
some alderman in Chicago getting a gun permit in a city where all guns have been banned since the Pleiostene Era.
Nope, guess TP’s right–the subject didn’t get changed.
“Let’s see; we went from “ZOMG, Obama is going to take away all our guns and make our daughters marry Mr. T!?!””
And someone said this? Oh, right, it wasn’t.
However, someone did mention NYC, NOLA, and various other gun laws demanding answers then didn’t like the ones they got since they didn’t fit into the normal anti-gun talking points and soundbytes.
However, Obama has supported banning rifle ammunition, handguns, semi-autos, and CCW while proposing defacto bans on gun shops nationwide.
Care to dispute that? Go ahead, let’s watch you dance.
Jadegold’s 4th point. I’m not arguing that more guns necessarily = less crime. YOU (and your ilk) are arguing that gun control = less crime (though that generally is the case)
Arizona has few gun laws and high crime rates. Cali & D.C> have strict gun control and high crime rates. What does that mean? It means that gun control (or lack of it) doesn’t necessarily = low crime.
If strict gun control = less crime then Philly, DC, MD, NJ, IL, CA, and MA would all be the safest places in the U.S. They’d all have the lowest violent crime rates. They don’t, despite strict gun control. Given that handguns are the primary guns used in crime one could expect areas with handgun bans to be virtually free of violent crime. Instead such places have high crime rates and are constantly plagued with gun violence.
I’m not arguing that more guns necessarily = less crime. YOU (and your ilk) are arguing that gun control = less crime (though that generally is the case)
Never said you did–although most gunloons do. The point, however, is that absence of gun control laws should at least do no harm. But that’s not the case in the locales I mentioned.
“The point, however, is that absence of gun control laws should at least do no harm. But that’s not the case in the locales I mentioned.”
And yet you’ve provided no evidence to support that assertion except for your opinion as to the ‘absence’ of ‘gun control laws’.
By your argument, ‘strong’ gun control laws should do no harm but that’s not the case in the locales mentioned.
Does the fallacy only work one way or can you actually provide evidence for your assertion?
And there’s your problem Jade – Since you’re pushing restrictions the onus is on you to prove the efficacy of those restrictions. You haven’t. If gun control was such a success you’d have a mountain of unquestionable factual data to back it up. The absence of that data only proves you wrong (as does the continual violence in “gun-free” cities and the fact that shootings keep happening in your magical “gun-free zones.”
Actually, I have.
Plus, since when does the “onus” fall on the side of ensuring the public safety and economic well-being?
As far as factual data goes–I could give it to you chapter and verse. Yet, there isn’t one study backing up your side of the story. Would you care to cite John Lott?
Wow. Look at that ad hominem get thrown out. Are you planning on citing bellisiles? Oh, no, wait, you’ll use Kellerman.
So far, jade has yet to show any of his proposed measures would “ensure public safety”.
what’s great is that at every turn he thinks he is right. even when you prove him wrong he keeps coming back for more.
I don’t need studies. The data is right there in the FBI crime stats.
DTB – You’re a dumbass. Laughable and funny, but still a dumbass. When have you “proven me wrong” with anything resembling a rational, factually based argument?
“Plus, since when does the “onus” fall on the side of ensuring the public safety and economic well-being?”
Sorry to burst your bubble Jade, but the “onus” ALWAYS falls on those who wish to restrict a Constitutional Right. I don’t have to prove a damn thing to exercise my rights.
I didn’t say i have proven you wrong dumbass. Which again is your problem. I hardly engage you b/c you are a class A asshole. VC, Dorian, Jason, LG, all have proven you wrong. Thank God Jade is hear to swat you around and save our readers from you.
this says it all about you mike
I don’t need studies.
what else do you need to know about someone that says that….
DTB – The raw data is right there for anyone to look at. It quite clearly shows that gun control does not equal lower violent crime.
“Which again is your problem. I hardly engage you b/c you are a class A asshole.”
Coming from you that’s a complement. I forgot. Countering you with rational, logical, factual arguments = being an asshole. I’m happy to oblige.
For example, I didn’t need a “study” to prove to Pandora that blacks were disproportionately both the perpetrators of violent crime and the victims of said crime. FBI UCR data and data from the BJS proved it. Of course she ignored it because it didn’t fit with her preconceived reality, but if she (or you) can’t accept facts that’s your problem not mine.
What an asshole.
Sure. The facts are right there, unencumbered by analysis and manipulation of some group doing a “study.”
The facts don’t lie, but you don’t like them so you call me an asshole. That just proves you have no intellectual ground to stand on.
Pandora – I’m glad I piss you off.
I don’t need no esstinkin’ studies.
I forgot that facts don’t matter here on DE Liberal, especially when guns are involved.
A “study” from the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence? Hailed as gospel! Actually crime data? Get those pesky facts away from me!….
“First, you’re assuming gun control has been tried. It really hasn’t.”
The abject stupidity of the anti-gunners posting on this site never ceases to amaze me. Jade – you’ve said some stupid shit on here before but this takes the cake.
Howdy jade, when are those post office police going to show up and arrest me for mail fraud?
I’m getting awful tired of waiting.
Just wondering.
Pandora – Comment # 112 –
I am pro-choice, however call me selfish, since I’m not directly impacted by abortion one way or the other it’s simply not as important an issue as gun control is for me. One directly affects me, the other does not.
Also, McCain/Palin aren’t a legitimate threat to abortion rights. Bush was anti-abortion AND had a Republican Congress for 6 of his 8 years in office, yet abortion rights were not curtailed.
Gun rights would not fair so well if Obama/Biden won and had a Democratic majority for 6 years. Obama could do more damage to gun rights with a few executive orders than Bush did to abortion rights during his entire Presidency. He’s also proven he’s willing to push for gun control and has no respect for 2nd Amendment rights (nor does Biden)
“It has nothing to do with greed…”
So keeping the money you earn is “greedy” Jason? How so? Especially since we’re talking about capital gains tax here.
Is it not also “greedy” for some washington bureaucrat to decide he wants to raise your taxes and extort more money from you?
“What an asshole”
Pandora – Care to explain how YOU ignoring the factual FBI UCR crime data I post to prove my point makes ME the asshole?
“As far as factual data goes–I could give it to you chapter and verse. Yet, there isn’t one study backing up your side of the story.”
Go for it Jade, let’s see those facts.