• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Meanwhile Yet Another Shutdown Looms

No it wasn't one group made a sham study to try to discredit proactive policing and three strikes laws by blaming lead exposure for criminal behavior, their own results cannot be used to conclude that, that is absolutely silly to think that out of thousands of biological and environmental factors you can pin someone's choice to commit a crime on some lead exposure.

We are dealing with you making an un-substantiated counter-claim.

Try hurr durr.
 
This is like arguing the commerce clause. There's really nothing anyone can say to prove you "wrong", but the possibility is miniscule.

As I said before, Im not arguing for a oversized responses. Im just pointing out the difference between fighting a disease spreading throughout our hemisphere to bad pipes in on city. I dont see how that can be viewed any other way.
 
But Republicans have a double standard. When Hurricane Ike ravaged Houston, Republicans were complaining that help coming here was too slow. But when it comes to Hurricane Sandy or lead poisoning in Flint, Republicans complain that helping out costs the taxpayers money.

In this case, they already put funding in for both, in two seperate bills. Dems want Flint funding in both bills, which is redundant.
 
In this case, they already put funding in for both, in two seperate bills. Dems want Flint funding in both bills, which is redundant.

That is not quite true. The Senate bill had the funding, but the House bill did not. When 2 versions of a bill have differences, then it goes to a conference committee, in which case, differences can be stripped out. In this case Flint didn't get stripped out because Paul Ryan, to his credit, fell on his sword, and went against the so-called Freedom Caucus, which was against the Flint funding, and now the government is funded until 9 December, when they will have to do this all over again.
 
Makes perfect sense. The Louisiana funding notwithstanding, putting out a bill that has $1.1 Billion to research something that has affected 12 people in the country while refusing to spend 10% of that amount to help the 80,000 people in Flint seems pathetic.

I believe the R's wanted a stand alone bill because Michigan is a likely swings state, and they don't want the D's taking all the credit.
 
No it wasn't one group made a sham study to try to discredit proactive policing and three strikes laws by blaming lead exposure for criminal behavior, their own results cannot be used to conclude that, that is absolutely silly to think that out of thousands of biological and environmental factors you can pin someone's choice to commit a crime on some lead exposure.

I'm not aware of evidence that concludes those studies of lead (several of them, and in various countries) were ALL a "sham" - do you have cites for that?

This NIH study looks at several studies and essentially concludes there is a ton of ecological evidence, across various regions, that shows a large correlation between lead and crime rates, and several epidemiological studies that show smaller effects, but effects consistent with the ecological studies. The conclusion is lead probably played some role but not as big a role as suggested by the ecological studies.

And you are obviously overstating the case for lead and crime and created a straw man there. The argument is lead is ONE factor and a significant one and that by eliminating that one factor you have affected (lowered but not by any stretch taken to zero) the crime rate.

And if you want to hang your hat on 'proactive policing' being the proximate cause of decreases in the crime rate, you'll have to explain why it worked in some areas, not in others, and in other areas without any change in policing or adopting three strikes laws, the crime rate also dropped roughly in line with those who adopted the broken windows stuff and who did implement three strikes laws.
 
That is not quite true. The Senate bill had the funding, but the House bill did not. When 2 versions of a bill have differences, then it goes to a conference committee, in which case, differences can be stripped out. In this case Flint didn't get stripped out because Paul Ryan, to his credit, fell on his sword, and went against the so-called Freedom Caucus, which was against the Flint funding, and now the government is funded until 9 December, when they will have to do this all over again.

No, there is an entirely different bill, The Water Resources Development Act of 2016, which also has funding. Its seperate from the broader whole govt funding act.

House adds $170 million in Flint funding to water bill | Washington Examiner
 
Soooo, will the dims be excoriated for allowing the government to "shut down", like the repubs are?
 
Back
Top Bottom