Debate Politics Forums - Blogs - Grim17 http://www.debatepolitics.com/blogs/grim17/ Non-biased and non-partisan political forums. Debate topics may include breaking news today, media bias, abortion, warfare, conspiracy theories, economics, climate change and health care discussion. en Thu, 23 May 2013 01:43:59 GMT vBulletin 60 http://images.debatepolitics.com/misc/rss.jpg Debate Politics Forums - Blogs - Grim17 http://www.debatepolitics.com/blogs/grim17/ The sub-prime crisis and why differing political views on the cause are a problem. http://www.debatepolitics.com/blogs/grim17/819-sub-prime-crisis-and-why-differing-political-views-cause-problem.html Fri, 23 Nov 2012 22:05:02 GMT Both sides of this argument have valid points and as strange as it may sound, both sides are corect. Yes the changes and strong enforcement of the CRA was responsible, and yes laws like the CFMA that loosened investment regulations were responsible. But repealing portions of Glass Steagal, as... Both sides of this argument have valid points and as strange as it may sound, both sides are corect.

Yes the changes and strong enforcement of the CRA was responsible, and yes laws like the CFMA that loosened investment regulations were responsible. But repealing portions of Glass Steagal, as I've so often heard is responsible, gave banks other avenues to generate profit, but didn't play a significant role in causing the crisis.

In simple, general terms, this is what went down:

1. When the Clinton Administration began in 1993, one of their goals was to increase minority home ownership.

2. To achieve that goal they made adjustments to the CRA, changed the methods in which compliance was determined, and the Justice Department began strictly enforcing compliance.

a) Method change - How bank compliance of the CRA was determined, was changed from being "process" based (whether banks had a process in place designed to achieve more community-based lending) to "performance" based (whether such lending actually occurred).

b) Enforcement - The Justice Department (Janet Reno) took a hard line stance and began taking legal action against both banks (mortgage lenders) and insurance companies (insurers of mortgages) who were either accused of (by community organizations) or seen by them, as engaging in "redlining" (the practice of not issuing many loans in certain high risk neighborhoods), unfair pricing, or underwriting discrimination (the qualifications of credit applicants). According to Reno herself, in the Administration's first 5 years they "filed and settled 13 major fair lending lawsuits". For example, they filed suit against Allbank of New York who they "alleged" had "refused to make loans" in high risk "urban minority enclaves". The Justice department forced Allbank to agree to issue $55 million in loans to people in those high risk neighborhoods, and do so at below-market rate.

3. This created a problem for banks, putting them in financial risk. The problem was, those (sub-prime) loans couldn't be sold to or secured by, companies like Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, as was the standard practice for small and localized banks. They also couldn't get them insured through companies like AIG, The reason for both was because the loans simply didn't meet their standards and were deemed too risky. This forced banks to carry those loans in house, subjecting them to significant financial risk if too many defaulted.

4. That lead to pressure being put on the Administration and congress by lenders, to loosen banking restrictions that would allow them other avenues of income to offset some of that risk, and it also lead to...

5. The Clinton Administration pressuring companies like Fannie Mae into lowering their standards, purchasing risky sub-prime mortgages from banks, and guaranteeing them in order to protect the banks as well as insurers.

6. With strong bi-partisan support congress passed, the senate approved, and President Clinton signed into law, several pieces of legislation that eased restrictions and/or removed regulations in the banking and investment industries.

7. Everyone was happy... Until it all came crashing down a decade later.

****

So you have people like myself, who blame the CRA and the changes made to it during the Clinton Administration for the financial crisis, and you have others who blame deregulation and corporate greed for the crisis.

The fact is, both are right, but...

While those on my side of the argument acknowledge the chain of events that lead to the crisis, seemingly out of political convenience, those on the other side do not. The fact is, without the minority home ownership agenda being pushed by the Clinton Administration, it's very likely the deregulation would have never gained traction, never gotten bi-partisan approval in congress, nor been signed into law by President Clinton.

If we don't want to see this type of thing happen again, people had better start telling the whole story, or history will surely repeat itself. ]]> Grim17 http://www.debatepolitics.com/blogs/grim17/819-sub-prime-crisis-and-why-differing-political-views-cause-problem.html Analyzing The Most Illogical Election EVER. Part 1 http://www.debatepolitics.com/blogs/grim17/816-analyzing-most-illogical-election-ever-part-1.html Mon, 19 Nov 2012 21:20:38 GMT As a Conservative that generally votes Republican, I was (to put it mildly) shocked by the election results on November 6th, as so many others across America were. Although for several days following the election, I felt inside that Obama's victory made no sense, at that time I simply had no interest what so ever in exploring or analyzing the reasons and just put it out of my mind. Now that the dust has settled and I'm over the initial shock and disappointment, I've been giving increasingly more time thinking about why Obama won, how Romney lost, and most importantly, analyzing why it is that the results of this election (as opposed to others) came as such a surprise to me.

There have been 9 presidential elections since 1980 and looking back at the results, every one makes logical sense to me, except of course this years results. Prior to the 2012 election, When I consider the candidates in each of those races, their records, platform, experience, campaign performances, etc... and I take into account the condition of the country at the time, and what issues were most important to voters during those election cycles, the person I feel should have won each of those elections, did win them.

Every single one of those 8 previous elections possessed certain key factors that determined in a clear and logical way, the reason why a certain candidate lost the election, why a certain candidate won the election, or in some cases, both. Some were based on voting either for or against the incumbent president/party based on the economy. Some were supported or rejected based on how they're seen handling key political issues other than the economy. Some were based on wanting someone new, exciting and/or inspiring as president, and some were based on a lack of qualifications, confidence or trust in a certain candidate. What ever the case happened to be in each of those elections, the results at least made a level of sense from a voters stand point, and logically supported the primary reason why the public votes for, or against a candidate in the first place.

The results of 2012 election don't seem to logically fit in with past results, and at least on the surface, didn't make a whole lot of sense to me. The question was, why? Could it be I was missing or overlooking something important about either Barack Obama's record. or Mitt Romney's qualifications, that I hadn't taken into account?
Romney

I decided that I would start with Mitt Romney. Sure he's not as charismatic as President Obama, but he was still very pleasant and likable. Considering he's the challenger facing an incumbent president, I wondered if this was similar to John Kerry losing to Bush in 2004, where the public didn't have confidence in his ability on the key political issue of that campaign (middle east wars and military)? Another possibility is, that after the public saw the debates and compared them, they decided Romney was clearly the weaker candidate, like in 2000 where Gore lost 12 points in the polls to Bush following the debates? Could it be that Romney was just a weak candidate or bad choice to begin with like Dole was in 96', or maybe he said or did something devastating to his campaign that killed his chances like Dukakis did back in 88'? Lets take a look...

The number one campaign issue in this years election by a huge margin, was the overall economy, including unemployment/jobs and the national debt. From mid October thru election day, I looked at 17 opinion polls (source: pollingreport.com & rasmussen) related to the economy, from 6 different polling companies. Of the polls that asked the public which candidate they trusted more, or thought would do a better job, on the overall economy, Romney averaged 4.5 points higher than Obama. On the issue of jobs and unemployment, Romney was 6 points higher, and on the issue of handling the debt, he was a whopping 10.2% higher than the president. Even though I averaged the polls, every one of the 17 individual polls on the economy, showed Romney scoring higher than Obama. (On the other, low priority issues of this campaign, the results were pretty much split depending on the issue, and the polling company)

So it's not that the public doesn't see Romney as qualified to deal with the problem, in fact it's quite the opposite. It also can't be that Romney is seen as weak when comparing the two, because he gained approval in the polls after the debates. It also can't be that Romney was seen as a weak candidate to begin with, because the more they got to know him, the higher his approval went. I also feel that Romney didn't do or say anything that rose to level of killing his chances to get elected. Sure, there were things said that got negative press, but they were all said prior to the debates, and prior to his approval numbers shooting up.

I concluded therefore, that Romney didn't blow the election or hand the win to the president. He was seen as likable, experienced, and a qualified candidate who represented a formidable challenge to the president's reelection bid, and the polls right up to the day of the election reflected that.

Obama

President Obama being the incumbent, has implemented policy, signed legislation into law, and been the steward of our economy for the last 4 years. As with all incumbents running for a second term, their record is their resume. Although there are other factors involved, the incumbents record has always been the single most important and influential factor that the public uses to determine if a president gets a second term in office or not.

Looking back at the previous 8 elections prior to this year, there was an incumbent running in 5 of those elections, 3 of which ended up winning as Obama did a few weeks ago, while the other 2 were defeated. First, I decided to compare Obama to the 3 that won their reelection bids. They were Bush in 2004, Clinton in 1996 and Reagan in 1984.

Both Bush and Reagan have something in common with obama, in that upon taking office, they also inherited bad economies (Bush's not as severe as the other 2). Clinton on the other hand, entered office during an economic upswing. Looking back at Reagan, In the 2 years prior to the 84' election, the unemployment rate was lowered from 10.8% to 7.4%, real unemployment declined more than 3% to 8.8%, 6.7 million net jobs were created, and the GDP averaged 5.7% growth over the previous 4 quarters. The economic results of his policies were successful, and the economy was looking good. Reagan was liked by the public at large and acted presidential. When you take into account that Mondale, his opponent, wasn't a very strong candidate and was the VP under the previous failed administration the Reagan had defeated, it made his reelection nearly inevitable.

In 2004, Bush had a good and growing economy, after having a rough time of it his first few years. The share of political negatives for Bush was note worthy, and had a growing list of political critics. Since the economy had been recovering for more than a year, the main issue with voters in that election was by far the war in Iraq and the war on terror in general. Bush was reasonably liked, but was seen at times based on his words and public presentation, as less than presidential by some. Bush being a war president gave him an advantage, but he was still seen as very defeatable. The main reason Bush won reelection wasn't because he was a particularly strong overall candidate, but more because his opponent was perceived as being significantly weak on national defense and military matters, based on his words and actions in the past. Simply put, John Kerry was the wrong candidate at the wrong time. So in the end, I believe the Bush victory had slightly more to do with his opponent losing, than it did with him winning.

Then there's the 1996 election. I saw the Clinton victory as a combination of the 84' win by Reagan (good economy), and the 2004 win by Bush (poor opposition). In spite of the failures early on in his first term, Bill Clinton acted presidential, was liked by the public, and had a solid economic resume going into the election. There wasn't any one particular issue that stood out as most important in that election and no issue's priority got more than 15% in the polls. The economy was chugging right along back then and not skipping a beat, and Clinton's opponent wasn't a very strong choice. In fact, Dole wouldn't have posed much of a challenge even if the economy wasn't in the best of shape. Clinton won because of the solid economy, a lack luster opponent, and in my view, would have been tough to defeat even with a formidable opponent.

What the incumbent victories of Reagan, Clinton and Bush had in common, was that the economy was strong and headed in the right direction for all 3 of them.

Continued in Part 2

http://www.debatepolitics.com/blogs/...er-part-2.html ]]> Grim17 http://www.debatepolitics.com/blogs/grim17/816-analyzing-most-illogical-election-ever-part-1.html Analyzing The Most Illogical Election EVER. Part 2 http://www.debatepolitics.com/blogs/grim17/815-analyzing-most-illogical-election-ever-part-2.html Mon, 19 Nov 2012 21:18:18 GMT Continued from part 1

As for Obama, in the 2 years leading up to the election unemployment was lowered from 9.8% to 7.9% (higher than when he took office), real unemployment during those 2 years didn't go down at all, and instead remained virtually unchanged at 11.6%, There were 3.7 million jobs created during that period, but unfortunately 3 million of those only covered population growth and the GDP only managed a 2.4% average growth rate during the previous year. Other economic factors include Family incomes which have significantly declined, insurance, food and gas prices which have gone up, and the record number of people on welfare and government assistance, has continued to climb. On top of that, after promising to cut deficits in half, they doubled during his first term, and the nations debt increased by a record $6 trillion. That's significantly more than was accumulated during the previous 8 years under George Bush.

Because of the 7% unemployment,Reagan's economy on paper, looked more similar to that of Obama. The big difference being, the incredible level of recovery that took place for Reagan prior to the election. The average GDP growth rate (5.7%) was more than double that of Obama's (2.4%), and he saw nearly 7 million jobs created in the 2 years of recovery prior to the election, which was a full 3 million more jobs than Obama saw.

The conclusion I come to, is that Obama's policies didn't result in any kind of significant economic recovery, the debt was increasing twice as fast as before, there wasn't any substantial GDP or job growth, and this in spite of the $800 billion spent on the stimulus package. In my estimation, Obama's policies can be judged as unsuccessful at best. They've resulted in slow growth and only managed to keep the economy from getting worse. His policies simply didn't deliver the economic recovery that was both promised and expected from them.

Based on the comparisons It's clear that the state of the economy played a significant role in incumbents winning reelection in 1984. 1996 and 2004. When the economy is good, Americans are content with who's in the Oval Office and explains why those men were reelected. It's also clear that President Obama does not fit into that category, as his economic performance clearly demonstrates.

There was only one other incumbent election that was worth taking a look at, and that's because it provided the closest economic comparison to Obama, of any of the other incumbents in the previous 8 elections... It was Jimmy Carter.

Like today, the publics mood back in 1980 wasn't pleasant. The country was suffering from high unemployment and economic stagnation. Carter had lines at the gas pumps, while we saw gas prices skyrocket for Obama since taking office. Carter had the continuing Iran hostage crisis (including a failed rescue mission) that became a big campaign issue, while Obama had the attack on the Bengazi consulate that killed 4 Americans, which wasn't given a lot of attention by the main stream press and didn't play a big factor in the election.

When it comes to the economic numbers, Carter went into the election with unemployment at 7.5%, and Obama at 7.8%. In the 2 years leading up the the election, Carter saw 2.5 million jobs created, while Obama had 3.7 million. But when you exclude population growth and the difference in the sizes of the workforce, they are about the same. As for the GDP, while it was low for Obama during 3 years of the recovery, the economy hadn't yet recovered from the recession of 1980 where the GDP was negative, the growth rate prior to that was 1% lower than what Obama experienced.

There were also several negative economic factors that came into play that differed for each of them. Carter was just coming out of a recession, while Obama was approaching 3 years of economic recovery. Carter had higher inflation and interest rates than Obama, but the real unemployment rate (includes people stuck with part time employment and those who gave up looking for work) was not only 1% higher for Obama at 11.6%, but it hadn't significantly lowered in the previous 2 years of the supposed economic recovery.

After comparing them, seeing the similarities between the two, I've come to the following conclusions. Both incumbents went into their elections with bad economies and neither demonstrated an ability in their first terms in office to effectively deal with the problems. Both also faced opponents that the public felt were qualified to be president, and were seen by them as capable of addressing the economic problems. Of course when it comes to their election results, that's where the similarities end...

Understandably, Jimmy Carter lost in an electoral landslide, with Ronald Reagan earning 440 more electoral votes, and 7.5 million more popular votes than Carter. The publics message from that election was abundantly clear. Low performance and No results = Low support and No reelection.

Barack Obama on the other hand, in spite of his ineffective economic policy that resulted in a 3 year "low growth" recovery, failure to lower the real unemployment rate in 2 years, doubling of budget deficits and nearly doubling the national debt by adding over $6 trillion to it, he still managed to soundly defeat Mitt Romney and earn a second term in Oval Office. Taking into account the negative effects on the economy and the increased cost to consumers that will soon result from the various EPA regulations about to take effect, the expiration of the current tax rates, and all the new taxes being implemented as a result of Obamacare, it makes the Obama victory over Romney even more counterintuitive.

So what have we learned?

1. It was clear based on the polls, that the economy far and away THE most important issue of the campaign. No other issue even came close.

2. The polls also showed clearly that the public felt Romney was a legitimate candidate, a formidable opponent, seen as better qualified to deal with the nations economy than Obama, and he didn't blow the election and hand the election to Obama.

3. Obama's performance on the economy most closely mirrors that of the Carter economy in `1980, who lost in a landslide as a result... while Bush, Clinton and Reagan all won based on their positive results, with solid economic situations moving strongly in the right direction... Results Obama's did not have, and what Obama's economy was not doing.

Conclusion:

Never has an American president been rewarded so generously, for failing so miserably... God help us all.

Recomendation:

Prior to submitting a registration to vote, a person be required to successfully spell their own name, count backward from 10 to 0, and correctly answer the question: "What state is New York in?"

Prevention is the best medicine you know. ]]> Grim17 http://www.debatepolitics.com/blogs/grim17/815-analyzing-most-illogical-election-ever-part-2.html My theory on how the universe was created http://www.debatepolitics.com/blogs/grim17/806-my-theory-universe-created.html Sun, 11 Nov 2012 04:42:58 GMT . First, I propose that: 1. Just as there is matter and anti-matter, there is also dark matter and dark anti-matter 2. Before the big bang, our universe was filled with large quantities of dark matter and nothing else. Our universe currently consists of mostly matter and dark matter (as... .
First, I propose that:

1. Just as there is matter and anti-matter, there is also dark matter and dark anti-matter
2. Before the big bang, our universe was filled with large quantities of dark matter and nothing else.

Our universe currently consists of mostly matter and dark matter (as opposed to anti-matter or dark anti-matter). Matter and dark matter are compatible as we know, but I believe that just as anti-matter and matter destroy each other, the same happens when anti-matter comes in contact with dark matter and vice versa. At the moment of the big bang, the matter and anti matter that was created were equal (as most scientists believe), but due to the volume of dark matter that already existed, it worked hand in hand with matter to destroy the anti-matter, making our universe one dominated by matter.



The Universe

Imagine our universe to be shaped like a six sided cube, and there are an infinite number of parallel, or neighboring universes. Each universe, including our own, is surrounded by 6 other universes that fit together and touch each side like a puzzle piece. But every one of those six universes are the polar opposite to ours. Each one is an anti-matter universe and are filled with dark anti-matter. I propose that this pattern continues forever, where each universe is always boxed in on all sides by 6 opposite universes.

Name: universe_cube.jpg Views: 228 Size: 74.6 KB



Gravity and black holes.

I describe gravity in the standard way just as Einstein did, where the more massive an object, the more it warps the fabric of space. Black holes are the most massive and dense objects in the universe. Their gravity is so strong, that not even light can escape. Anything that falls into one is ripped to pieces, including the very cells we are made of.

At the center of most galaxy's there is a super massive black hole, which means the universe has billions of them. When galaxies collide their black holes envelope each other to become a super, super massive black hole. I believe that black holes are what ends the life of a universe. In the last quarter of our universes life (just a figure I threw out there), I believe there will be a hand full of black holes in our universe capable of swallowing up entire galaxies in the blink of an eye. The thing is, I also believe that there is a point where a black hole becomes so massive and dense that it goes from warping the fabric of space, to cutting a hole right through it.

Name: gravity.jpg Views: 385 Size: 40.1 KB

It is my theory that when that critical mass is met, the gravity becomes so strong that it cuts, or falls completely through the boundaries of our universe into an adjacent anti-matter universe. It's just like if you were to push down on a steel rod in the center of a trampoline. You put all your weight and strength into it and it doesn't move, but As soon as the rod cuts through the fabric the rod shoots into the ground with tremendous force. So at faster than the speed of light, that force propels all the dark matter that had fallen through the event horizon in the last fraction of a second of the black hole's life, into the dark anti-matter in the next universe creating an explosion larger than humans could ever comprehend.


In other words, black holes are what creates a "big bang".


Since according to scientists, the matter contained at the core of a super massive black hole is basically the same as what they say existed a billionth of a second before the big bang in our own universe, this seems to be a plausible hypothesis.

Well, that's my theory anyway.... Of course I still haven't come up with a solid answer as to why the universe is expanding faster and faster each day... But neither do any scientists, so I guess I'm in good company.

*******************

Before you comment, my credentials:

Dropped out of high school senior year to join the Army
Obtained a GED at age 26
Attended 1 year of college before dropping out.

Worse subject in high school: Science
Number of classes taken in college related to this topic: 0
Number of classes outside college I've taken on this subject: 0
Number of Books I've read on this subject: 0
Number of visits to a planetarium: 1 (7th grade)
Number of telescopes owned in my life: 0

I watch a lot of space documentaries.

Grim17
11/10/2012 ]]> Grim17 http://www.debatepolitics.com/blogs/grim17/806-my-theory-universe-created.html The Rise and Fall of the Liberal Protest Movement http://www.debatepolitics.com/blogs/grim17/696-rise-and-fall-liberal-protest-movement.html Mon, 06 Aug 2012 00:20:59 GMT ... Over the last 40 or 50 years the Liberal movement in America has been more effective in bringing about needed change than any other movement in the history of the nation. They have a proud legacy of standing up and fighting for peoples rights and being the voice for victims of... ...

Over the last 40 or 50 years the Liberal movement in America has been more effective in bringing about needed change than any other movement in the history of the nation. They have a proud legacy of standing up and fighting for peoples rights and being the voice for victims of discrimination, whether it be for Black's, homosexuals, or women. Their persistence and refusal to shut up in the face adversity has truly changed the country for the better.

They were responsible for the integration of Black people into all facets of American society, for women no longer being discriminated against and harassed in the workplace, and for homosexuals no longer having to hide in the shadows and being able to live their lives openly and freely, without fear of being shunned and victimized by society. Thanks to their efforts, the words "You can't because your Black, a woman, or gay", have been virtually eliminated in our culture. Something that not very long ago, you'd have been hard pressed to find many who would have believed that would ever become the norm in American society... But here we are.

Throughout the years of their struggles, Liberal causes managed to prevail even though they were very strongly outnumbered. Think back to the civil rights protests and even though public opinion was not on their side, they far outnumbered the opposition at public protests. Liberals were the ones who were mostly peaceful, while the opposition often resorted to violence. The reason for the greater numbers and their success boiled down to one key element that no amount of opposition could overcome... It came down to a battle between "right and wrong", and the peaceful liberal protesters are the ones who had "right" on their side. Don't forget also, that "wrong" never draws the number of supporters that "right" does. Put another way, it was "victims" versus "victimizers" which in my opinion, gave the liberal protesters the moral upper hand that in a country like ours, was destine to prevail.

Fast forward to today and you find that those same fundamental principles still apply and are the key to whether an agenda succeeds or fails. The only difference in recent years, is that it's no longer the Liberal movement that's peaceful, has the greater numbers, or the moral upper hand, it's the conservative movement. Somewhere along the line Liberals became the victimizers, the oppressors, and the ones who resort to violence. They took what was a successful and righteous agenda, and transformed it into a movement that no longer has "right" on it's side. They went from fighting for equal justice for all, like Martin Luther King did during the civil rights movement (a core principal in America), to fighting for social justice (something that Obama embraces), which has nothing to do with equality, and the majority of Americans are rejecting it.

The sad thing about it is, most Liberals don't even realize what's happened and can't figure out why their efforts now fail. The reason is really quite simple. They don't understand that there's a big difference between "equal justice" and "social justice", as the latest episode concerning Chik-Fil-A proves.

Years ago Liberals fought for gay rights (aka equal justice), a righteous endeavor that was very successful. But as they have done with most of their causes, they took the gay rights agenda a step too far. They went from fighting for equal justice for homosexuals by calling for an end to their oppression and demanding they be treated fairly and with respect, to fighting for social justice for homosexuals by demanding the redefinition of marriage, and that everyone agree with their lifestyle or risk being discriminated against and oppressed themselves. They have gone from having "right" on their side and fighting for victims, to becoming victimizers who no longer hold the moral high ground.

When elected government officials in Chicago, Boston and San Francisco threatened to discriminate against, and in effect oppress the CEO of Chik-Fil-A because he voiced his opposition to gay marriage, the left surrendered the moral high ground and became just as bad as the people they once fought against. That CEO has every right to oppose the redefinition of marriage, that's part of being an American. He hasn't discriminated against homosexuals, tried to prevent them from engaging in their preferred lifestyle, or advocated for laws that make being homosexual behavior illegal. He wasn't trying to prevent homosexuals from becoming legal partners, just trying to preserve the integrity of marriage as being between a man and a woman.

Equal justice means that gay partners should be just as accepted as heterosexual partners, and have the same legal rights. That hurts no one. Social justice in essence calls for reverse discrimination. It dictates that you not only treat homosexuals equally, but you can no longer publicly disagree with their lifestyle without fear of retribution. While at the same time, it's perfectly fine for homosexuals to publicly attack anyone they want to with impunity. It also gives them the right to demands things that discriminate or hurt others unnecessarily, which is precisely what demanding that homosexual partnerships be defined as a "marriage" does. Demanding the redefinition of the word "marriage" has nothing to do with equal rights or equal treatment, it's all about revenge or retribution.

Equal justice is the fight to eliminate hate and discrimination, making it socially unacceptable from anyone. With equal justice, a person doesn't have to like or agree with their opponent, just respect their rights... While social justice is eliminating the hate and discrimination from one side and passing to the other side, demanding that society accept it. It requires that one side show respect, while not requiring the same from the other.

The people who showed up for "Appreciation Day", just as the people who showed up for tax day in 2009 and 2010, showed up in D.C. for both Beck rallies, showed up at town halls in 2010, have joined in the many hundreds of Tea Party rallies nationwide, and have been so successful in elections such as Wisconsin and the senate in Massachusetts, are winning the battle because they now possess that one key element that liberals long ago abandoned... And no matter how many times the left attacks and calls the opposition racists, bigots, homophobes or anything else, as long as conservatives have "right" on their side, and liberals continue pushing for social justice rather than equal justice, their protest movements will continue to fail, just as they have for the last 4 years.


Grim17
8/5/2012 ]]> Grim17 http://www.debatepolitics.com/blogs/grim17/696-rise-and-fall-liberal-protest-movement.html <![CDATA[Enough already... Zimmerman, Martin, and Florida's self defense laws]]> http://www.debatepolitics.com/blogs/grim17/599-enough-already-zimmerman-martin-and-floridas-self-defense-laws.html Wed, 16 May 2012 17:15:24 GMT .

OK, it's time to put an end to the baseless speculation and mis-characterization of
Florida Law by Thunder, and a handful of others on this forum who believe
Zimmerman should be held criminally accountable for the death of Trayvon
Martin.



The Claims

Zimmerman's legal defense against the charges pending against him, is that he
shot Trayvon Martin in an act of self-defense. Zimmerman claims that while
returning to his truck, Martin approached him and physically attacked him,
knocking him to the ground whereby Martin proceeded to get on top of him and
repeatedly slam his head into the concrete sidewalk. A struggle for Zimmerman's
holstered weapon then ensued, and ended when Zimmerman shot and killed Martin.

Trayvon Martin supporters have come up with evidence or circumstances that they
believe legally disqualifies Z from claiming self-defense, and/or will nullify
Zimmerman's "self-defense" claim in the eyes of the jury... Such as:


1. The use of the words "A-hole" and "F'ing punks" along
with other statements made by Z during his conversation with police that night,
which they claim shows him to be aggressive and determined to "take the
law into his own hands if necessary" to prevent Martin from escaping
police questioning.

2. That Z's assumption that Martin was possibly engaging in, or possibly
planning, criminal activity, along with the fact so many robbery's had taken
place in the area and no one arrested for them, lead to Zimmerman attempting to
confront and/or illegally detain Martin until police arrived.

3. That Martin, being afraid for his life, was the one acting in self-defense
based on 2 scenarios. He was confronted by Zimmerman and then either a) Z
initiated the physical contact or b) Z allowed (either by accident or on
purpose) his gun to become visible to Martin, thereby justifying Martin
initiating the attack, fearing he was going to be shot.

4. That the act of following Martin was illegal and/or an act of aggression,
nullifying Z's self-defense claim and/or justifying Martin's use of physical
force as a means of self-defense.



Possible Scenarios

(for the purpose of clarity and conciseness, I will be citing Florida law using
Martin's and Zimmerman's names, along with omitting options and certain
behaviors described, that do not apply to this particular incident.)

Based on Zimmerman's 911 call to police, cell phone records, testimony from
Martin's girlfriend and eye witness accounts, we know pretty much everything
that took place that night. What we don't know however, is what took place between
the time Z hung up with police and the fight breaking out which ended with
Martin being fatally shot. Unfortunately, it's that 3 or 4 minute gap that's
most important in understanding how this tragedy actually unfolded, and since
the only surviving witness to that period of time is George Zimmerman himself,
it's lead to a broad range of speculation and alternate scenarios from those
who don't accept Z's self-defense claims.

The 4 scenarios from Martin supporters I listed above, basically break down into
3 different categories:

a) Zimmerman's beliefs and state of mind prior to the confrontation.
b) The legality of Zimmerman's actions prior to, and including, the point of
physical contact.
c) Legal justification for Martin's actions just prior to, and during the
confrontation.


The Law

The first one, "a" is irrelevant because even if the allegations are
true, self-defense laws are based on a person’s actions, not their motives or
state of mind prior to an altercation. Besides, as I will show you a little
later, even if such evidence does sway a jury, it won't matter.

As for point "b", the legality of Z's actions, as far as I could
discover in my research, it was not against the law for Z to follow martin,
therefore can't be used as a legal basis to nullify his claim of self-defense.
Following or harassing a person falls under Stat.§ 784.048. regarding
"stalking". It states that if Zimmerman willfully, maliciously, and
repeatedly followed or harassed Martin, he would be guilty of misdemeanor
stalking... So all 3 of the prerequisites must be true, to make following
Martin a crime. He did follow Martin willfully, and it could be argued there
was malice involved in doing so, but since this was the first and only known
encounter between the two of them, Zimmerman could not have
"repeatedly" followed Martin, therefore he is not guilty of stalking
and as far as I can see, his actions did not break any laws.

This leaves point "c", the question of whether Martin's actions,
based on the several scenarios put forth by his supporters, qualifies under
Florida law as legal self-defense on his part. The short answer is
"yes" his initial actions can be seen as Martin acting in self-defense,
but at the same time, doesn't nullify Zimmerman's claim of self-defense by
shooting him.

Here's why...

By now, most people interested in this case have a general idea of what
Florida's laws are on self-defense. When you closely examine them however, you
will find that even in the scenario most prejudicial against Zimmerman, his
actions still qualify legally as an act of self-defense. Let's assume that:

* Martin feared for his life.
* Zimmerman is the one who confronted Martin.
* Zimmerman initiated contact with Martin (threw the first punch)


Even in this scenario, based on the testimony of the eye witness closest to the
confrontation, George Zimmerman was still acting in self-defense, even though
the same can be said of Travon Martin.

We know Florida law says that based on that scenario, Martin is justified
using force against Z because he reasonably believed he was in imminent danger
of being harmed by him. As for Zimmerman's claim of self-defense, Florida law
states that being the aggressor (confronted Martin and forced the situation), the
self-defense law does not apply to him if 1) he was committing a felony at the time
or punched Martin to escape capture for committing a felony, which does not apply
here... or 2) he initially provokes the use of force against him by throwing the first punch
(which he did) *unless a) Martin's retaliation was so powerful that Z felt he was in
imminent danger of death or great bodily harm and hadn't thrown the first punch and
tried to escape, which he does not qualify for, or b) stopped fighting Martin and clearly
indicated to him that he gives up and wants the fight to end, but Martin continues to
beat him up anyway. According to the eye witness closest to the confrontation, that
appears to be exactly what took place... According to him, Martin was on top of
Zimmerman beating him up and Z was screaming for help. Those calls for help by
Zimmerman clearly indicated he wanted to withdraw from the fight and end the
physical confrontation. So much so, that the eye witness from his patio, told
Martin to stop beating Zimmerman and then stated that he was going to call the
police.

This means that even if this scenario turned out to be accurate and it was Z
who confronted Martin, Z who threw the first punch, and Martin did in fact fear
for his safety, Zimmerman's claims of self-defense are still legally justified
under Florida law.


Conclusion

The bottom line here is, all the speculation about Zimmerman's actions, motives, and state of mind prior to the confrontation are meaningless and totally irrelevant in this case. The jury will not be allowed to take into consideration any of it when determining if Zimmerman was acting in self-defense or not, because those issues have no impact what so ever on whether Zimmerman was legally acting in self-defense or not.
 ]]> Grim17 http://www.debatepolitics.com/blogs/grim17/599-enough-already-zimmerman-martin-and-floridas-self-defense-laws.html Obama, The Media, and The Great Jobs Scam of 2012 http://www.debatepolitics.com/blogs/grim17/527-obama-media-and-great-jobs-scam-2012.html Mon, 27 Feb 2012 21:44:12 GMT .
We've all been hearing a lot lately from the Democrats in Washington, the main stream media, and of course President Obama, how the U.S. economy has been getting better and better. This news couldn't have come at a better time for the President either, with this being an election year and the race for the White House starting to heat up. So what's been fueling this sunny optimism? In a word "Jobs".

One look at the employment numbers that have rolled in over the past 2 years, and it's hard to argue that economically, things are finally looking up in America... Or are they? Let's take a look.

After peaking at 10.0% back in October 2009, the unemployment rate has finally come back down to where it was after Obama's first month in office, with a big chunk of that coming in the last 4 months. On top of that, we've had 16 straight months of positive job creation, with over 400,000 jobs created in the last 2 months alone. Although those numbers weren't what I would call great, they were certainly positive and what most people believed indicated at minimum, that moderate progress had been made over the past 28 months... Then I decided to look a little deeper into the job figures and I discovered a statistic at the Bureau of Labor Statistics website called the "Employment to population ratio." That statistic shed a whole new light on things, and brought to the surface the reality of our economic progress.

The "Employment to Population Ratio" is a statistic that goes hand in hand with the unemployment rate. What it does, is it uses the "Civilian noninstitutional population", which is total number of people that are of legal working age and eligible to work in the U.S, and the total number of people in the country who are currently employed, and gives you the percent, or ratio, of those who are employed, to those who could be employed. The relationship between it and the unemployment rate however, is an inverted one. That is to say, that when one goes up, the other goes down and visa-versa.

Since 1948 when the government started keeping these statistics, through the end of 2009, you could look at the EP Ratio and determine within a few months when the unemployment rate had peaked and began coming down. All you had to do is find the point where the ratio bottomed out and began to rise, (which has happened over a dozen times) and it matched it every single time. This is demonstrated with the following graphs taken from the BLS website:

Name: U_88-09.jpg Views: 131 Size: 31.5 KB Name: E_88-09.jpg Views: 135 Size: 33.0 KB

When you take the EP Ratio graph and invert it, that is to say, flip it over, then superimpose it with the unemployment rate, you see just how remarkably similar these two statistics are, and the reason why they go hand in hand with each other.

Name: T_88-09.jpg Views: 132 Size: 38.8 KB

It only makes sense that when the unemployment rate goes down, the percentage of the eligible workforce that's employed in America has to go up... Right?

Now take a look at what happens when I expand those graphs to include the last 2 years:

Name: T_88-12.jpg Views: 130 Size: 36.6 KB

Notice that their relationship seems to change? Upon closer examination, I noticed something startling... Something that just didn't seem to make sense. What I found was, that since October 2009 when the unemployment rate peaked at 10% and began coming down, the EP Ratio which was at 58.5, hadn't changed at all. In fact, as of January 2012, the EP Ratio is exactly the same as it was back in October of 2009, even though the unemployment rate has gone down nearly 2 points.

Name: T_09-12.jpg Views: 135 Size: 70.8 KB

How could that possibly be? How could we have 16 consecutive months of positive job creation and unemployment coming down so significantly over the last 28 months, with no increase what so ever in the percentage of the American workforce who are employed?

The reason is clear (and for lack of a better term), the Unemployment rate is a scam... One in which the main stream media in America seems all too happy to willing participant in.

These numbers confirm what those outside the main stream media have been saying all along, that the unemployment rate failing to account for those who have given up looking for work, makes it an inaccurate measure of economic recovery. It shows that the real unemployment rate in America hasn't changed a bit since it hit 10% in October 2009. In fact, after Obama 's first month in office, the unemployment rate was 8.3%, which is exactly the same as it is today, yet the EP Ratio is nearly 2 points lower now (58.5), then it was back then (60.3).

Those statistics also confirm another sad fact. They confirm that the 16 straight months of positive job growth, which the Obama Administration and Democrats on Capitol Hill have claimed is proof that the stimulus package they passed in 2009 worked, only managed to barely keep up with the population growth since the end of 2009, and haven't resulted in any measurable progress at all.

In a nut shell, these numbers prove 3 things: That the economy hasn't improved in nearly 2 and a half years, that the Obama stimulus package was an 800 billion dollar failure, and that we have a main stream media in America that's willing to do what ever they can to cover up the truth in order to get Barack Obama elected to a second term as president.

Grim17
2/27/2012 ]]> Grim17 http://www.debatepolitics.com/blogs/grim17/527-obama-media-and-great-jobs-scam-2012.html The Politics of Killing http://www.debatepolitics.com/blogs/grim17/511-politics-killing.html Sun, 05 Feb 2012 16:03:40 GMT .

I know what many of you are probably thinking after reading the title of this piece. Your thinking this is just another one of those "anti-war", "anti-military" opinion pieces that's going to preach the evils of war, and pound into your head a 1001 reasons why we need to bring the troops home from Iraq.

For those of you that thought that's where this story was going, I'm very happy to tell you that you couldn't be more wrong.

Before I go any further, I want you all to know I'm a Republican and conservative by nature. I believe that killing is wrong. I'm against abortion unless the life of the mother is endangered, or the pregnancy was the result of rape or incest. I'm against the death penalty. I'm against doctor assisted suicide. I don't like war and I couldn't kill another human being even if it was to save my own life.

I do however, respect the rule of law and the decisions that our society makes. Even though I am against abortion, it is legal and I respect a woman's right to choose what's best for her. I also respect the decisions made by people in states like Texas that voted to impose a death penalty. Though I wouldn't kill another person, I understand that war is sometimes a necessary evil, and have the greatest respect for our soldiers, and support the current war against Islamic terrorism.

I have a set of values I live my life by, just as our society does. Even though they differ in many ways, I have enough respect for our system of government, to go with the flow and not attempt to impose my beliefs on everyone. Live and let live, you know?

With that said, I want you to understand that this op has nothing to do with Iraq, or war in general... It's more about our values as Americans. More specifically, it's about the political ideologies that many of us embrace, and the publics misconception about what those ideologies represent.

For example, if you were to ask the average American, someone with no particular political leanings, which political party or ideology they believed would most likely resort to violence or murder as a solution to a problem, and which most would likely seek peace and a non-violent approach as a solution, how do you think most of them answer? I think it's safe to say, that based on how the media has stereotyped Democrats, Republicans, liberals and conservatives over the last 40 years, most would label Republicans/conservatives as the ones that would resort to violence and killing, and the Democrats/liberals as the ones who would not.

The problem for those that agree with that particular belief is, they are only half right.

This may come as a shock to many, but the fact is, generally speaking of course, both sides of the political landscape in America support the killing and murder of their fellow Americans. You heard me right, both Liberals and Democrats, as well as Republicans and Conservatives, stand for the killing of their fellow man and I'll prove that to you shortly.

Now even though I've stated that the two sides have in common a support for killing, they couldn't be any more opposite. What makes their common belief so different, is based on two things:

1. Who they support murdering.
2. The reasons both stated, and underlying, for why they support that killing.


"WHO"

Republican/Conservatives in general are pro death penalty, pro NRA (the right to bare arms) and pro self defenses (both on a personal, as well as a national level). What that translates into, is a support for the killing of US criminals such as mass murders and home intruders that threaten your safety, and enemies of war such as military, national and terrorist leaders during times of conflict.

On the other side of the coin, Democrats/Liberals are generally pro choice (for legalized abortions) and pro euthanasia. That translates into support for the killing of unborn children, severely injured or handicapped people and doctor assisted suicides.

Now that we've established that both sides of the political spectrum in America, do in fact support the pre meditated murder of other human beings, it's time to take a look at how each side justifies taking such a stand, as well as examine some of the underlying reasons that led them to support such a thing.

"Justification"

Obviously, each side feels that their particular support for murder is justified, other wise they wouldn't support it in the first place. On the Republican side, their stated reasons are pretty cut and dry. For example, the right justifies the execution of serial killers like Ted Bundy based on "Justice". They feel that the people of each state have the right decide how justice should be served, and for the most part, feel that execution is an acceptable punishment for those that have chosen of sound mind, to take lives of innocent Americans. They also don't feel that the state should have to feed and clothe such people for the rest of their lives. They see it as "an eye for an eye".

When it comes to home invaders or people that threaten an innocent persons life, Conservatives believe that every citizen has the right to defend themselves, even if that means that the use of deadly force is necessary. That is why they support the right for law abiding citizens to own a firearm.

When it comes to enemies of war, such as brutal dictators like Saddam Hussein and leaders of terrorist organizations like al qaida, Republicans believe that if those leaders choose not to surrender or comply with the peaceful demands of the United States, then they are left with only one choice... Eliminate them. They justify their actions based on national defense and the safety of the American people.

On the Democratic side, they justify their support for legalized abortion several ways. On a general level, they believe it is every womans right to choose whether they want to bring a child into the world, and that nobody has the right to force any woman into bearing a child that they do not want. They also believe that abortion is justified out of concern for the child itself. This applies in cases of rape, incest, under aged pregnancies and based on the mothers ability both mentally and financially care for a child.

When it comes to euthanasia, the left justifies their support for this based on humanitarian reasons. In the case of Terri Schiavo, they believed that her injuries ruined her quality of life, and killing her was the humanitarian thing to do. They also felt that keeping her alive was hurting her husband both emotionally and financially, so this was the best thing to do for him also. When it comes to chronic pain sufferers and the elderly wanting someone like Jack Kevorkian to help them end their life, the same humanitarian reasons apply.

The "underlying" reality

The bottom line as I see it is this... Republicans support the killing of thugs like Abu Musab al-Zarqawi and serial murders like Ted Bundy as a means of justice or self defense. The choice of whether people like these live or die, is ultimately one that's made by them, not republicans. Society chooses how justice should be served at the ballot box, and when monsters like Ted Bundy decide to murder innocent people for kicks, they know full well what awaits them when they are caught. When it comes to terrorist leaders and dictators like Saddam and Bin Laden, they too were also given a choice between life or death, and as we all know, they chose death rather than a peaceful solution.

Even though there are some exceptions, for the most part those that the left supports killing don't have a choice. The decision whether a person lives or dies is often decided by the left, and the people themselves have absolutely no say so. In the case of Terri Schiavo, she was sentenced to death by those who embrace the Liberal ideology, even though her parents wanted to care for her. They took it upon themselves to kill her needlessly. With the exception of rape, incest and the health of the mother, the same holds true for most abortions. Those children are murdered and have absolutely no say so in the matter.


Now we have all heard the reasons that both sides give to justify their support for killing, but when you break it down, this is what you are left with.

Republicans/conservatives support killing as a means for justice, self defense and self preservations. In nearly all cases, such killings are approved by the American people, either at the ballot box, or by their elected representatives. The people they support killing are the scum of society, that understand before hand the consequences of their actions.

The Democrats/liberals support for the killing of unborn children in the vast majority of cases, is nothing more than a quick fix for irresponsible behavior. Except in cases of rape or incest, the last time I checked, pregnancy was 100% preventable. In the Terri Schiavo case, this was also a murder of convenience. The husband didn't want to live up to his wedding vows and care for his wife. He wanted to wash his hands of her, so he decided that death was the answer. That didn't have to be done. She had family that was willing to care for her, but the left still supported starving the woman to death for the selfish benefit of her husband.

So as you see, one side supports killing only for self defense and justice, while the other side supports killing often out of convenience and so others can avoid taking responsibility for their actions.

Which side you choose to stand behind is a moral choice that only you can make.

Grim17
2/5/2012

* originally written and published 2/9/2008 ]]> Grim17 http://www.debatepolitics.com/blogs/grim17/511-politics-killing.html Clear Differences http://www.debatepolitics.com/blogs/grim17/498-clear-differences.html Thu, 19 Jan 2012 14:10:52 GMT .
All the kids in the town I grew up in, understood that there were "good neighborhoods" and there were "bad neighborhoods". I expect that's true for nearly all Americans, of all colors, no matter what city or town they grew up in. When I was a kid back in the early 70's, that was important information that we all had to know, because back in those days there were no video games, no computers and no internet, so we spent nearly all of our free time playing outside. We rode bikes everywhere, hiked in the woods, and spent time in the local parks playing ball and swinging on the monkey bars. So for safety reasons, it was necessary for parents to not only make sure we knew where those bad areas were, but to also establish strict parameters of where we could and could not go, in order to prevent us from straying into those potentially dangerous areas.


That got me to thinking about what actually constituted a bad neighborhood back then?


Well, a bad neighborhood is one that's usually not taken care of very well, and has lots of broken glass and garbage on the streets. It's an area with a higher crime rate, where illegal activity and negative influences such as drug dealing, drug use and prostitution are done out in the open. Most importantly, at least as far as parents are concerned, it's an area that poses a much greater safety risk to kids, especially the kids who are culturally different or don't live there. Parents know that if kids wander into those neighborhoods, it significantly increases the chances they would become victims of violence or theft. In fact the police even feel more threatened in those neighborhoods, which unfortunately contributes to a higher percentage of scuffles and confrontations between the residents of those communities and local police, then you would see in other neighborhoods.


What I have gathered through personal observation, is when residents were violent, involved in illegal activity, part of gangs, participated in the destruction of the area, etc... most law abiding residents just accept that "that's the way it is", do nothing about it, and simply minded their own business. What's so ironic, is that it's those people, the ones who's inactions offer silent approval to those destroying their neighborhoods, are the very same people that will fly off the handle and read the riot act to anyone who dares to paint their community a "bad neighborhood", by pointing out the seedy activity taking place... the activity they choose to ignore.

Does that mean that everyone who lives in that neighborhood is violent, involved in street gangs and drugs? Not at all.


Does that mean all of them break windows, throw trash on the streets and don't give a damn about taking care of where they live? No.


Does it mean none of these elements exist in a so called "good neighborhoods?" Of course not.


We all know those elements exist in every neighborhood, no mater what town or city you're talking about. So while it's true that the good people far out number the bad in both neighborhoods, that doesn't change the fact that one has less crime, and is a safer and better environment for kids... while the other has more criminal activity, poses a much greater safety risk to kids and exposes them to a lot more negative elements.


Then there's a good neighborhood. the most significant difference I see, other than appearances (cleanliness and upkeep) is that the residents in a good neighborhood get involved and take pride in their community. They do what ever is necessary to expel the bad elements, and they don't tolerate violent behavior or illegal activity taking place on their streets. For example, if they see a crime being committed, or maybe something suspicious going on, or even something that just doesn't look right, they get involved. They will check out what's going on themselves, maybe express their concerns to the people in question, or they pick up the phone and call the police department.


There are many people out there that think it's offensive to label certain communities as good neighborhoods or bad neighborhoods, and believe that people should focus on the vast amount of things communities and the people who live in them have in common. Of course nearly all of those people are the ones who either live in, or come from, one of those "bad" neighborhoods. They want everyone to forget the obvious, and ignore the clear differences.

*

I just has a crazy idea... I wonder if it would work... If I just replace certain words with others... Hmmmm, lets see...


Well, an OWS protest site is one that's usually not taken care of very well, and has lots of broken glass and garbage on the streets. It's a protest with a higher crime rate, where illegal activity and negative influences such as drug dealing, drug use and prostitution are done out in the open. Most importantly, at least as far as conservatives are concerned, it's a protest that poses a much greater safety risk to people, especially the people who are politically different and don't live there. Americans know that if a person wanders into those OWS protests, it significantly increased the chances they would become victims of violence or theft. In fact the police even feel more threatened at those protests, which unfortunately contributes to a higher percentage of scuffles and confrontations between the protesters at OWS and local police, then you would see at a Tea Party protests.


What I have gathered through personal observation, is when protesters were violent, involved in illegal activity, part of gangs, participated in the destruction of the area, etc... most law abiding protesters just accept that "that's the way it is", do nothing about it, and simply minded their own business. What's so ironic, is that it's those protesters, the ones who's inactions offer silent approval to protesters destroying their OWS event, are the very same liberals that will fly off the handle and read the riot act to anyone who dares to paint OWS a "bad protest", by pointing out the seedy activity taking place... the activity they choose to ignore.

Does that mean that everyone who protests at OWS is violent, involved in street gangs and drugs? Not at all.


Does that mean all OWS protesters break windows, throw trash on the streets and don't give a damn about taking care of the protest area? No.


Does it mean none of these elements exist in a "Tea Party protest?" Of course not.


We all know those elements exist in every protest movement, no mater what town or city they protest in. So while it's true that the good people far out number the bad in both protest movements, that doesn't change the fact that the Tea Party has less crime, and is a safer and better environment for people... while OWS has more criminal activity, poses a much greater safety risk to people and exposes the public to a lot more negative elements.


Then there's a Tea Party protest. the most significant difference I see, other than appearances (cleanliness and upkeep) is that the protesters in a Tea Party event get involved and take pride in America. Tea Party people do what ever is necessary to expel the bad elements, and they don't tolerate violent behavior or illegal activity taking place at their events. For example, if protesters see a crime being committed, or maybe something suspicious going on, or even something that just doesn't look right, they get involved. Tea Party protesters will check out what's going on themselves, maybe express their concerns to the people in question, or they pick up the phone and call the police department.


There are many liberals out there that think it's offensive to label protest organizations as good protest movements or bad protest movements, and believe that everyone should focus on the vast amount of things OWS events and the protesters who live at them have in common with the Tea Party. Of course nearly all of those liberals are the protesters who either live at, or protested at, one of those "OWS" protest sites. OWS protesters want everyone to forget the obvious, and ignore the clear differences.

*

Well what do you know...

Grim17
1/19/2012 ]]> Grim17 http://www.debatepolitics.com/blogs/grim17/498-clear-differences.html Correction http://www.debatepolitics.com/blogs/grim17/496-correction.html Mon, 16 Jan 2012 19:09:50 GMT Disreguard please Disreguard please ]]> Grim17 http://www.debatepolitics.com/blogs/grim17/496-correction.html 2 Presidents... 2 Plans... 2 Results: A Bush/Obama Comparisan http://www.debatepolitics.com/blogs/grim17/495-2-presidents-2-plans-2-results-bush-obama-comparisan.html Mon, 16 Jan 2012 09:52:54 GMT .
In my view, you don't judge the performance of president based on the hand their dealt, but rather by how they choose to play it. In the last 35 years, every president (with the exception of Bill Clinton) has been faced with an economic down-turn or recession in their first term in office, that even though they themselves played no part in creating, were the ones held responsible for taking the nessisary actions to fix. It is the results of those actions that determine whether a president is an effective leader who deserves a second term, or whether he ends up being a one term president that history soon forgets.

I bring this up because lately, I've seen several posts on this forum as well as posts elsewhere on the net, displaying various economic numbers from Obama's presidency and comparing some of those numbers to those of George Bush's presidency. In my opinion, the numbers as well as the comparisans paint a rather deceiving picture of the effectiveness of both presidents. So after giving it some thought, I decided to make a comparisan of my own that I think paints a much more accurate picture of what both presidents achieved in the face of economic troubles.

***

First, we start with the facts:

Both Bush and Obama inherited recessions upon taking office for their first terms as president, neither of which were the result of the policies of their predecessors. Both men took what was seen at the time, as controversial action to get the economy back on the right track. The major criticism toward both Bush's and Obama's plans, were that the they would increase the nations debt by creating large budget deficits, which their critics claimed would far out weigh the benefits, if any, their plans would achieve.

Bush inherited a mild recession that was compounded by the attacks on September 11th. At that time the Congress was controlled by Republicans and the Senate by Democrats. Bush took action in May 2003 and signed into law the "Jobs and Growth Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2003". Both the Senate and Congress were then controlled by Republicans and the bill was passed by both houses on nearly a straight party line vote.

Obama inherited a recession that began at the end of 2007. At that time both the Congress and Senate were controlled by Democrats. Obama took action in February 2009 and signed into law the "American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009". Both the Senate and Congress were still controlled by Democrats and the bill was passed by both houses on nearly a straight party line vote.

The Numbers:


Here are the results after 34 months of the implementation of both plans:
Bush__ - 6/03 thru 3/06
Obama - 3/09 thru 12/11

Unemployment Rate:
Bush__ 6.3% to 4.7%. - 1.6% Lower
Obama 8.7% to 8.5%. - 0.2% Lower
Difference - Bush 1.4% greater reduction

Total US Jobs Created:
Bush__ +5.857 million
Obama -0.937 million
Difference - Bush +6.794 million jobs

Budget Deficit Total of Following 2 Years:
Bush__ 2004 + 2005 = 0.732 trillion dollars
Obama 2010 + 2011 = 2.593 trillion dollars
Difference - Bush 1.861 trillion dollars less

Average Quarterly GDP Growth Rate Following 2 Years
Bush__ 2004, 2005 average - 3.28%
Obama 2010, 2011 average - 2.49%
Difference - Bush 0.79% higher



Now I realize that the economic situation Obama inherited was far more severe than the one Bush had to deal with, but even so, it's still my opinion that Bush's actions gave us a lot more "bang for the buck" than Obama's actions did. In fact, I don't see how anyone could possibly come to any other conclusion... But as sure as the sun will rise tomorrow, someone will...

Grim17
1/16/2012 ]]> Grim17 http://www.debatepolitics.com/blogs/grim17/495-2-presidents-2-plans-2-results-bush-obama-comparisan.html <![CDATA[Looks Can Be Deceiving... Especially When It Comes To Media "Watch-Dogs"]]> http://www.debatepolitics.com/blogs/grim17/164-looks-can-deceiving-especially-comes-media-watch-dogs.html Fri, 21 Jan 2011 19:56:53 GMT . On the surface most people would say that Media Matters and NewsBusters are like two peas in a pod. They present the same kind of stuff on their websites and appear to have very similar purposes and goals, with the only difference being that each operate from opposite sides of the political... .
On the surface most people would say that Media Matters and NewsBusters are like two peas in a pod. They present the same kind of stuff on their websites and appear to have very similar purposes and goals, with the only difference being that each operate from opposite sides of the political spectrum. While it's true that both claim to be media "watch dog" websites, both have an obvious political bias, both tend to make a big deal out of insignificant issues, and both focus their attention primarily on media outlets that lean toward their political opposition, I have found them to be different in some very significant ways... Way's that stand out far more than their similarities do.


First, take a look at the M.O. of each. Media Matters makes a habit out of attacking the integrity and honesty of Fox News and anyone on the conservative side of politics. They do so most often by accusing them of lying, deliberately misrepresenting issues, or ignoring facts that are often totally irrelevant, just to create a controversy. They do this by parsing words, taking things out of context, and by inventing alternative meanings to what is actually said. They look for anything, no matter how petty, irrelevant or insignificant they can find, and twist it into a "gotcha" moment for the expressed purpose of attacking those with opposing political viewpoints.

NewsBusters on the other hand, primarily points out liberal bias in the main stream media by showing what was actually said about a news item, what wasn't said, what stories the media chooses to report on, and what stories they choose to ignore. They rarely launch unwarranted personal attacks on someone by twisting words or inventing an alternative meanings to what they've presented.


Since I know that that description will likely be politically dismissed by the left, I've decided to take the 10 latest posts from each website (1/20/11, 3:00pm est) and see what they are based on, to point out the difference between the two websites.

Media Matters:

  • They attack 2 bloggers over their criticism of Michelle Obama's dress.
    Right-Wing Fashion Police Attack Michelle Obama&#39;s State Dinner Dress Choice | Media Matters for America
  • They accuse Karl Rove of using false information.
  • They accuse O'Reilly of misleading people.
  • They criticize Beck over his words discussing the "Obama is racist" incident.
  • They accuse Limbaugh of mocking Chinese culture.
  • They criticize Fox's Martha MacCallum for her comment about the EPA during interview.
  • They criticize Fox for interviewing a doctor who is skeptical about the HHS study
  • They accuse Fox of putting out false information on the health care bill.
  • They attack Newt for a statement he made on Hannity about the administration.
  • They go after the Wash Times for op-ed's critical of Obama's Tucson speech.


NewsBusters:

  • They point out that morning news shows didn't report on abortionist's murder arrest.
    Network Morning Shows Ignore Philadelphia Abortionist&#039;s Murder Arrest | NewsBusters.org
  • They criticize NBC for the anti-republican speculation they used in reporting Obama's poll numbers.
  • They point out CBS correspondent's bias when reporting on obamacare repeal vote.
  • They mention that the NB website was mentioned on Hannity panel last night.
  • They point out NBC Nightly News didn't report on Congressman's Nazi comparison,
  • An op-ed on Palin attacks and the effect on her poll numbers
  • They criticize congressman for saying Obamacare mandate is in the constitution and is a "right".
  • They report on two conservative writers who level harsh criticism of NY Times Tucson coverage.
  • They criticize CBS for timing of report on plight of small businesses, after Obama announcement of regulation reform.
  • They voice criticism of ABC's "Sick Kids" report on eve of HC repeal, and their positive characterization of bill.


Can you see a difference?

Here's what I observed:

Of the 10 stories from Media Matters, 8 were critical of conservative opinion people (pundits, talkers) and only 2 were directed at hard news reporting/content. Those stories, as is their norm, are mostly comprised of accusations of falsehoods based on the twisting and parsing of words, and With few exceptions, such accusations are always directed toward conservatives in the media and anyone who works for, or is affiliated with, Fox News.

Of the 10 stories from NewsBusters, 8 were critical of hard news coverage by main stream outlets, while 1 was critical of a congressman's words and 1 recognized a website mention on a TV show. As you can see, the majority of the NB stories are based on the spin, tone and choice of stories the main stream news media reports on, and target a wide variety of different media outlets. They don't focus their efforts on playing "gotcha" by twisting and manipulating words into something they're not, in order to make the people in the media out to be unintelligent or liars. They just point out the things that indicate their obvious political imbalance.

Based on their presentation and methods, rather than their mission statements, it's clear to me that each have separate and very different objectives they want to achieve through their stories. Media Matters articles attempt to discredit conservatives and conservative media, by attacking their integrity, honesty and intelligence. While the objective of NewsBusters articles is to show how the main stream media's obvious political bias cheats the public. They point out how that bias results both in their opinion inappropriately getting sprinkled into the news, which often creates a one sided presentation, and also how that bias determines what stories the choose to ignore, resulting often in the American people getting an incomplete picture of the events taking place in America and the world.

Then there's the matter of the overall goals that each website has set out to achieve. Those goals couldn't be any more different, or any more obvious. The people and organizations that influence these websites do say a lot about what they are out to achieve, but it's their actions behind the scenes that make their goals undeniable.

Media Matters is regularly involved in soliciting media outlets to fire conservative opinion people, when ever those people have acted in such a way that has angered the liberal political establishment. They also produce false and misleading reports on various conservative media personalities and use those reports to solicit companies that advertise on their shows, both on radio and TV, in an effort to get them to pull their advertising. They have also mounted campaigns to boycott the companies that continue to advertise with conservatives talkers they disagree with. MM has also helped organize and sponsor protests against vocal conservative voices and public events they hold. NewsBusters on the other hand, does not engage in any of those tactics or activities. The most you will see from them in their dealings with the liberal media, is an occasional demand for a media outlet to retract, correct, or apologize for an erroneous story they reported on.

Actions speak louder than words, and when you examine the actions those websites have taken and the approach used in the content of their articles, who they are and what they are trying to accomplish couldn't be an more clear.

Media Matters isn't a media watch dog that's "dedicated to comprehensively monitoring, analyzing, and correcting conservative misinformation"... They're a liberal sponsored "attack dog" with the very clear and unmistakable goal of silencing all conservative political opinion and destroying any conservative friendly media outlets, especially Fox News.

NewsBusters goals are very different. They aren't out to make liars out of the liberal media to bring about their demise, they just want to show the obvious liberal bias in the media in the hopes they will make efforts in the future to eliminate that bias from their news coverage... Or as it states on their website, "to bring balance and responsibility to the news media."

Don't get me wrong, I think the majority of NewsBusters articles are petty, insignificant and in many cases, blow situations way out of proportion. Many of the opinions they express can be too partisan in nature, and some even have a conspiratorial air to them, both of which leave a lot to be desired as far as I'm concerned. For the most part though, NewsBusters is an honest broker of information, whether you believe in liberal media bias or not... As for Media Matters, they display over and over again, that lies and distortions play an integral part in the articles they publish, which are designed to slander, impugn, discredit, and ultimately destroy/silence their political opposition. Though MM and NB may appear similar in what they do, placing both of those websites on equal ground is not only dishonest, it's an insult to human intelligence.

. ]]> Grim17 http://www.debatepolitics.com/blogs/grim17/164-looks-can-deceiving-especially-comes-media-watch-dogs.html