*
Bedford Ramblings
Steve Mills

Any ideas why an apparent increase in multi-person gun violence?

Posted Tuesday, November 14, 2017, at 10:04 PM
Comments
View 240 comments
Note: The nature of the Internet makes it impractical for our staff to review every comment. Please note that those who post comments on this website may do so using a screen name, which may or may not reflect a website user's actual name. Readers should be careful not to assign comments to real people who may have names similar to screen names. Refrain from obscenity in your comments, and to keep discussions civil, don't say anything in a way your grandmother would be ashamed to read.
  • Agreed that the media recognition fuels much of it.

    Gun free zones offering large crowds of defenseless people are another.

    The length of a mass shooting always depends on when another person with a gun shows up.

    -- Posted by quietmike on Wed, Nov 15, 2017, at 3:09 AM
  • The kind of gun used also contributes to high number of fatalities since you can kill a large number of people in a few seconds.When you don't have to reload people have less of a chance.

    -- Posted by lets be real on Wed, Nov 15, 2017, at 10:21 AM
  • I would have to see the statistical information to develop an opinion of whether the total number of mass shootings has gone up. Certainly we have seen some records broken lately, but having bigger body counts in a few shootings does not necessarily mean there have been more shootings.

    Speaking of statistical information, Quite Mike, by which I mean serious, hard numbers, not cherry picked or imaginary data, countries with fewer guns have fewer shootings, and fewer murders in general. Forget all the talking points and nonsense. Countries with fewer guns are safer places to live. That is not a conclusion as to why anything. Whether the fewer guns reflects a less violent population or the larger number of homicides reflects a more violent population is immaterial. This is a more or less democratic society, and we, as a people, have chosen to have a country with a lot of guns. Do the politicians jump and perform tricks when the NRA snaps its fingers? Sure they do. But that is only because the people who vote will not vote for anyone who does not serve the NRA's wishes. I am sick and tired of people crying about that, and the whole gun issue in general. If they want gun control, they should get off their collective (term for burro) and go vote for politicians who will institute different policies. Otherwise they should just shut up. We get what we vote for, not what we sit at home and whine about.... We might not get what we individually vote for. Just because I vote for something does not mean that the majority of voters will vote the same way. But, at least I still get to vote. Our voter turnout in the US hovers around 50%. Other first world democracies have voter turnout between 80 and 90%. That means in the US we get what half the people want, while those countries get what 80 or 90% of the people want. The people who vote have chosen to have a nation awash in guns. That seems fair enough to me.

    -- Posted by lazarus on Wed, Nov 15, 2017, at 10:28 AM
  • Laz,

    Much depends if you are talking about legal guns in circulation or all guns.

    Lots of south American countries have very strict gun laws, but still have lots of guns, as the cartels effectively run the country. They also have higher murder rates than here.

    Also noteworthy is there is no fixed definition of a mass shooting. Some say 4 deaths, some 3,some say 3 injuries.

    Psychotropic drugs are very commonly used by mass shooters, but usually not reported as rampantly as the type of gun, if it fits a narrative.

    -- Posted by quietmike on Wed, Nov 15, 2017, at 12:29 PM
  • Anyone who kills another human being is brain damaged! How do you kill another human? Those who are brain damaged will get a gun or car or truck or knife or sword or whatever it is they want to use to commit their crime. These people are sick and not your average people,

    Now some people may become temporarily insane at any given moment and reach for something to kill with. Those people may not have a gun at the time and must use whatever. Again, that is someone who is brain damaged and has no control over their brain.

    These people who are brain damaged could care less if they have a permit to own or carry a weapon, so no gun control law will stop them from committing their crime. I don't think they would think twice about the punishment they would receive from stealing a weapon when they have no intentions of being arrested.

    Minutes of fame? How are they getting any glory out of it? They are dead! It's more like self gratification while they do it. Look at the glory the cops get when they murder an unarmed person, then get a PAID Vacation while they are investigated.

    Just WHAT Gun Control Law can you think of that congress can come up with to control the purchase of a weapon or prevent a brain damaged person from stealing a loaded gun to commit a murder? That is just brain dead thinking!

    TENNESSEE STATE CONSTITUTION

    Article I Section 26.

    That the citizens of this state have a right to keep and to bear arms for their common defense; but the Legislature shall have power, by law, to regulate the wearing of arms with a view to prevent crime.

    (Nothing in that Section that says anything about Muskets or for use only to hunt or target practicing.)

    Then we have:

    Article I, Section 28.

    That no citizen of this state shall be compelled to bear arms, provided he will pay an equivalent, to be ascertained by law.

    (Now that looks like it is a crime if the people don't bear arms, but can pay an equivalent if he chooses NOT TO BEAR ARMS!)

    Maybe the people need to read their State Constitution before they go voting for Gun Control Laws!

    The US Constitution says that Congress can not infringe on the right of the people to bear and keep arms while the State Constitution says we do have to bear arms unless we pay a fee.

    To sum it up, the government is going to charge you a fee to get registered to buy a gun, a fee to carry a gun or they could charge a fee not to bear arms!

    Okay, I'll leave this up to you brain smart people to figure out. Looks like we may be damned if we do and damned if we don't!

    The answer: neither the state nor the Federal government can place a fee nor a charge on a right.

    "A State may not impose a charge for the enjoyment of a Right granted by the Federal Constitution." Murdock v Pennsylvania, 319 U.S. 105, at 113

    -- Posted by sui on Thu, Nov 16, 2017, at 12:44 AM
  • There is one inescapable fact.

    Murder is already illegal everywhere. If laws were going to stop shootings, then why do people break the law against murder?

    The California shooter was a convicted felon, who is disallowed from buying or possessing guns... he got one anyway. High capacity magazines are illegal in California... he got several anyway.

    His rampage stopped when good guys with guns arrived,as is true with 100% of mass shootings.

    Seems like the solution is self-evident for those who can look at the facts with a dispassionate eye.

    -- Posted by quietmike on Thu, Nov 16, 2017, at 4:09 AM
  • A dispassionate eye, Quite Mike? A "dispassionate eye" that ignores hard, cold facts in favor of crafted arguments? No, QM, we have decided, as a society (or, at least the people who exercise their right to vote have decided)that we like our guns enough to pay the price in blood that it costs to have them. Nothing wrong with that. Being free means being free to make bad decisions as well as good. But, to pretend that more guns make us safer is just stupid. It ignores the entirety of all available data. Fewer guns means fewer gun deaths. Period. Fewer mass shootings, fewer homicides, fewer suicides. And it means fewer deaths, period. It might be possible to kill by any number of other means, but it simply does not happen at the same rate when it is more difficult. Not that it is that important. We have more than enough people on earth. We are not going to go extinct because we have too many guns. And everyone killed by guns only did the inevitable a little sooner. They would all have died eventually, anyway. Everyone does. Not only do we have fewer deaths in countries where the gun culture never existed, we have examples of countries where the decision was made to end the carnage, and reduce the number of guns... in every case there are now fewer deaths caused by firearms, and fewer early deaths, period. Not a little bit fewer; far fewer. So, if ya'll want your guns, fine. Campaign long and hard to keep them. Vote out anyone that even whispers about trying to implement restrictions. Just stop insulting my intelligence with specious arguments.

    -- Posted by lazarus on Thu, Nov 16, 2017, at 9:34 AM
  • Dispassionate means, as you know, looking at hard facts, such as .00006% instead of screaming from the rooftops "oh my god, we have to do something about this epidemic!".

    More guns do not equal more deaths. Switzerland is a prime example.

    Venezuela Honduras, and El Salvador have the highest murder rates in the world and have very strict gun laws.

    If fewer guns cause less murders, how do you explain Chicago vs. Unionville or Wheel?

    -- Posted by quietmike on Thu, Nov 16, 2017, at 10:00 AM
  • Laz,

    You keep making these claims but don't post anything to back it up. How about some supporting documentation?

    Here's mine.

    https://crimeresearch.org/2015/06/comparing-death-rates-from-mass-public-shootin...

    and

    https://crimeresearch.org/2013/12/murder-and-homicide-rates-before-and-after-gun...

    -- Posted by quietmike on Thu, Nov 16, 2017, at 10:10 AM
  • So, Laz, what would you suggest? A constitutional convention for a do-over? Or another amendment to revoke the second? Or just vote in legislators to chip away at the edges of it? The Second Amendment wasn't put in for hunting or recreation or even protection from neighbors and ne'er-do-wells. It was put in so we can protect ourselves from the guvment. While I currently fear the government a little less than I did 2 years ago, I still would like to have some protection. Remember the Scout motto? "Be prepared."

    -- Posted by fair share on Thu, Nov 16, 2017, at 10:16 AM
  • To all the Brain Dead Idiots!

    What part of "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed", don't you understand???

    Once a right is recognized as a right, it can never be taken away unless it is a privilege that is given by the government, like the Civil Rights to immigrants.

    God gave everyone Sovereign Unalienable rights to do anything they want to as long as they don't infringe on other people's rights.

    Everyone was born with these equal rights. Some chose to surrender these rights for benefits and privileges. These people are no longer equal to those who protect their rights and haven't surrendered them for benefits or privileges.

    Therefore, it is meaningless to take away a right unless the individual voluntarily surrenders his/her right.

    When you get a permit to buy a gun, you have just surrendered your right to keep and bear arms so you can carry that permit. You didn't know that I'm sure. Your loss!

    That permit now makes you liable for any gun control law they want to pass. That was a pretty easy way to take your right away, without you even knowing it.

    There are no Constitutional Do-Overs allowed unless it gives the people more rights. Ever Article of the Bill of Rights is recorded in Law, so the constitution isn't needed except as a document to read what the government can and can not do. It has no bearings on your rights other than to say the state and federal gov can not violate your rights that God gave you. Only you can give your rights away, except as a punishment for some crimes.

    Congress, as much as they would like to remove all guns from the people, they can not. Only your guns can be taken away if you consent to giving your guns away. Wait a minute! Isn't that what the permit to buy or carry a gun did? It turned your right to keep and bear arms into a privilege to own a gun with restrictions like no lead ammo, no big magazines, no automatic weapons, no bumper stocks (if passed) into law.

    And that is just your right to keep and bear arms. You have hundreds of rights you haven't ever read about yet, that is, if you don't give them away too. You gave you right to hunt and fish and marry away when you purchased a license to hunt, fish and marry in exchange for the privilege to hunt, fish and marry. Licenses and permits were created for immigrants who wanted to do what you had a right to do.

    -- Posted by sui on Thu, Nov 16, 2017, at 1:41 PM
  • Mike, here we go again. How many times will you proudly post completely false right-wing propaganda as "news" or "fact" before you realize you've duped again? It's funny that conservatives are always screaming about "fake news", but then they are always the ones that fall for it. Are you really this gullible? Or do you just not care?

    Anyway, the links you referenced and the "data" and "statistics" therein have been thoroughly debunked by numerous studies.

    The website, crimeresearch.org, is really just one discredited gun-nut with a computer in his basement named John Lott.

    I can post numerous links that show that his charts, data, and statistics are completely bogus. But I'll just post one about him for now.

    And you can't say that I'm "shooting the messenger" when it's the message itself that's completely false.

    Again...please try to do some research on things before you post them.

    I hate to see you continually make a fool of yourself.

    https://www.armedwithreason.com/shooting-down-the-gun-lobbys-favorite-academic-a...

    -- Posted by RocketValentine on Thu, Nov 16, 2017, at 1:57 PM
  • Sui, we could have a constitutional convention and totally remake the constitution, or change just 1 little part. At least theoretically. Realistically, in this day and age, we would not be able to get enough people involved to pass it. So our 2nd Amendment right to keep bare arms is only infringed as much as we allow it to be.

    -- Posted by fair share on Thu, Nov 16, 2017, at 2:32 PM
  • RV,

    You complain about biased sources and post an article from Mom's Demand Action, a gun control activist group, as a refutation?

    Get real.

    -- Posted by quietmike on Thu, Nov 16, 2017, at 5:48 PM
  • If you don't like Lott's work, how about Obama's CDC study that shows defensive gun use is at least as common as guns used in crimes?

    https://www.nap.edu/read/18319/chapter/3#15

    -- Posted by quietmike on Thu, Nov 16, 2017, at 5:53 PM
  • RocketValentine,

    Your article on Dr. John R. Lott, By Evan DeFilippis and Devin Hughes is a masterpiece!

    In the first few paragraphs Dr. John Lott is, without exception, the most prolific and influential writer on the topic of gun violence and gun control. He has credentials that would make most academics envious—with various stints at Stanford, Rice, UCLA, Wharton, Cornell, the University of Chicago and Yale.

    According to LexisNexis queries, his op-ed pieces have appeared in newspapers at least 161 times. He has been referred to in more than 1,100 newspaper columns. Lott’s most famous book, More Guns, Less Crime, has been referenced by major news publications at least 727 times. The lobbying arm of the National Rifle Association, the Institute for Legislative Action (NRA-ILA), has spotlighted Lott’s scholarship at least 140 times on their website. After every mass shooting or national gun violence tragedy, Lott is the de facto talking head for the pro-gun community on news programs such as Fox News. He has also testified numerous times in front of Congress and state legislatures, having been a critical voice in the expansion of Right-to-Carry (RTC) laws.

    However the people you are listening to don't have any credentials that compare to Dr .John R. Lott, by any means, yet you believe their results on simple tests that were made up by them! And so many of them could only attempt to prove one or two statistics that may or may not be different from Lott's?

    I would put my money on Dr. John R, Lott's research and book. A lot more studies were made and determined over time. All those other reviews are just that! Reviews. And **** poor ones at that.

    There are no statistics that can explain all the killings and shootings. The world is just going nuts,

    people just don't have any common sense, or they don't know how to use it. You can see it everyday in the news.

    -- Posted by sui on Thu, Nov 16, 2017, at 7:27 PM
  • I have the information you asked about QM. But attempts to copy it on here were fruitless. Perhaps I could e-mail it to Steve, and he could post it for general discussion. The one thing it shows is that our perceptions of the situation diverge considerably from reality.

    -- Posted by lazarus on Fri, Nov 17, 2017, at 7:45 AM
  • Sue, I'm glad you thought the article about John Lott was a "masterpiece."

    I thought it was very informative as well.

    But you should have really read more than just the first few paragraphs.

    The numerous studies that proved Lott's data to completely falsified were all done by well respected criminologists, law professors, crime researchers, police departments, etc.

    Lott is no longer affiliated with any university or creditable organization for good reason. His studies, data and statistics have all been found to be bogus. Of course that doesn't stop gullible conservatives like yourself or Mikey from still using his debunked claims as fact.

    -- Posted by RocketValentine on Fri, Nov 17, 2017, at 8:18 AM
  • The US has the highest rate of gun ownership on the planet with 112 guns for every 100 people, over 350 million guns total, with over 12 billion rounds of ammunition sold annually.

    If Laz and RV were correct, and more guns equalled more murders, the US should have, by far, the highest murder rate in the world. It's not even in the top 25.

    -- Posted by quietmike on Fri, Nov 17, 2017, at 9:21 AM
  • QM; You are comparing chalk and cheese. We have far and away the highest murder rate in the first world. Of the countries we fall behind, that would be the entirety of South and Central America, where governments and criminal gangs compete for control of the countries, parts of Africa, which have similar issues of governmental control, along with two of Trump's favorite countries, the Phillipines and Russia, which are ruled by ruthless dictators. Of course, when Trump praises these countries for their "order", he is not referring to an orderly and civilized society, but the ability of their leaders to kill or imprison their political opponents. It is difficult to evaluate the remainder of the old Soviet Union, as many of those countries do not have available any reliable statistics.

    If you remove the countries without functional governments, we stand alone at the top. The only country with more than half our murder rate is Montenegro, and Montenegro has been improving their situation as they try to get a grip on their gun culture.

    I wish I had a way to post the information I have gathered, as I believe you would find it interesting. It supports some of your "arguments" and contradicts others.... If you take the non-gun homicides, the US does not come out so bad. We are tied for 8th among first world countries. Interestingly enough, Montenegro is dead last in non-gun murders! Contrary to the prevailing belief, murder is not a major cause of death in the first world, including in the US. Gun Accidents and suicides cause more deaths than *all murders combined* both in the US and in the overall first world. Not surprisingly, the number of accidental deaths and suicides correlates pretty well with the number of guns, altho an emphasis on screening and training people allowed to have firearms correlates with lower rates of gun deaths more than the sheer number of guns. Counterintuitively, personal protection laws correlate with more homicides, as do concealed carry laws. Regardless; guns are not a major threat to everyday citizens in the US (unless you own one), nor is being murdered in general.

    If we ever decide that we want to address our gun issues, there are a lot of ways we could improve our status among first world countries, without impinging the "right to bear arms." Contrary to popular belief here in the US, most first world countries have substantial gun ownership. They just make a better effort to keep firearms in the hands of responsible people with serious training in their use.

    -- Posted by lazarus on Fri, Nov 17, 2017, at 10:58 AM
  • Why do you leave out "third world countries" in you analysis?

    The answer to that question also answers why there are so many murders here as most murders in the US are concentrated in a few cities that would be likened to third world countries when compared to the rest of the country. Also comparable is the level of restrictive gun laws in those US cities and areas of South America and Africa.

    Laz would you support mandatory screening and training such as is required with a current carry permit to buy/carry a gun, if that permit were valid in every state like a driver's license?

    Also that new permit could be used at the point of sale for gun buyers to demonstrate their legality to buy a gun, while scrapping the current background check system, including those for class 3 devices?

    One of the BIG issues I have with gun laws is they are always one sided with no compromise. We started with no gun laws whatsoever, and contrary to popular belief there were semi automatic guns and machine guns during the founders time.

    Since then, as is standard, rights are whittled away and never given back.

    What gun laws would you be willing to give up and what would you want in exchange?

    -- Posted by quietmike on Fri, Nov 17, 2017, at 11:15 AM
  • RocketValentine, That is sui as in sui juris. Did any of them do a research that included divorced husbands and ex-wives, anti-facists vs the normal people, the poor and desperate hungry person who doesn't qualify for food stamps because he/she is only in a slump but will find work soon or because his rent had to be paid first. Did they include the different cities, counties and states, or did they just do a total average from all, that won't tell you ****! Did the police department include the Murdering of innocent people who were deaf and couldn't hear the cops giving them orders or just murdered an innocent man or woman like you read or see in the news? The children who were playing cops and robbers with a toy gun. The murder of poor street people who aren't hurting anyone, but don't understand the law. Did they count all those people in their research?

    All done by well respected criminologists, law professors, crime researchers, police departments, etc. doesn't mean expert. When did "RESPECTED" have anything to do with intelligence? These people only know what they are taught. Just look at the universities and their so called professors today. They all suck and are teaching things that no student should be objected to. The mere word of Trump written in chalk on a sidewalk and the universities and their staff and students go bonkers and need reverse brain washing to get their heads on straight. They can't deal with anything let alone gun control statistics. You shouldn't use the debunked to debunk statistics. It's these "Respected" who are making the students like they are. The students are only learning what is being taught to them.

    The police are driving pass the crime areas so they wouldn't have to explain shooting someone who has a gun or weapon on them, increasing the demand for future criminals to buy or steal a gun to carry to keep the cops away.

    How does that statistic play in the overall scheme of things? Did the police departments add that little tid bit in their research?

    There is no one answer to the problem, except live and let live and enjoy your life the best you can without harming anyone while doing it. It's like I tell everyone, when you are driving your car, you have to watch the other drivers.

    -- Posted by sui on Fri, Nov 17, 2017, at 10:38 PM
  • Yep...more guns! Definitely what we need.

    https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.usatoday.com/amp/873053001

    -- Posted by RocketValentine on Sat, Nov 18, 2017, at 7:47 AM
  • Well, QM, I only compare first world countries to first world countries, because comparing chalk to cheese in order to obtain the desired results does not interest me. Why do you continue to blame our murder rate on the existence of slums (and, implicitly, minorities) when the other first world countries also have slums (and even minorities)? For that matter, why are you seeking to bargain with me about changing our gun laws? Have I, somewhere, called for our gun laws to be changed? I only observed that the people who vote have decided that the additional deaths are worth having lots of guns. As a matter of fact, I have explicitly stated that, while the juicy statistic of having more than twice as many murders as anyone else might be eye-catching, the actual threat level of being murdered is still insignificant. Mass shootings, terrorist attacks and the like make for good news media hooks, but, as the driver for public policy they pander to the voter with a poor grasp of math. Maybe we have made that decision based on deluding ourselves with alternate facts and specious arguments, but effectively we are willing to trade additional deaths for more guns... and, by the way, homicides do not account for the majority of the additional deaths. The majority of the additional deaths (by a factor of two to one) come from accidents and suicides and are not a product of having slums (and minorities).

    -- Posted by lazarus on Sat, Nov 18, 2017, at 8:19 AM
  • Why do I seek to bargain on gun laws? Have you called for gun laws to be changed?

    Yes, in every discussion we've had about guns, until this one.

    FWIW-I can see no reasonable excuse for making commercially available the sort of weapons that were used in Las Vegas.

    -- Posted by lazarus on Wed, Oct 4, 2017

    Since they are commercially available, making them not commercially available would require a change in the law.

    If you really want to look at mass murders and/or murder rates, read up on Pol Pot, Stalin, Hitler and a few others who managed to disarm their populace. Democide has killed more people than all the wars combined.

    As far as the chalk and cheese argument, which first world country is more diverse than the US in culture, religion, economy, etc.? All are more homogeneous than us.

    Which has the geographic size of the US? A person whose family has lived in a small geographic area for generations has a different outlook on their "neighborhood" than someone who didn't.

    Also the differences in slums here vs slums elsewhere is striking. In Europe no one is telling those in slums their plight is due to people paying 90% of the taxes not paying their fair share. No one in Europe is fomenting a class war like a certain party has done here for decades.

    People in slums abroad are overwhelmingly there due to no jobs being available, as evidenced by the work ethic of illegal aliens willing to risk their lives to come here for the opportunities our bums say is impossible to live under.

    Overwhelmingly the people who live in American slums are there due to laziness and/or poor life choices.

    -- Posted by quietmike on Sat, Nov 18, 2017, at 9:53 AM
  • What is the percentage of gun related deaths per number of gun owners?

    What is the percentage of deaths with registered guns vs non registered guns?

    What is the percentage of gun deaths by criminals vs the average law abiding citizen?

    What is the percentage of gun related deaths between insane of mentally challenged people vs non-insane or mentally challenged citizen?

    What is the percentage of deaths by guns from persons with mental problems compared to the whole Mentally insane population?

    What is the total number of deaths by guns vs the number of Deaths by Doctor misdiagnosis or neglect?

    What is the total number of gun related deaths in other countries the same size as America who have a constitutional right to keep and bear arms?

    What is the total number of gun related deaths in other countries that have the same number of foreign immigrants and illegal aliens as we have in America?

    There are too many variables to make an intelligent guess that would give anyone the correct answer to gun control laws.

    That is why the framers of the constitution wrote the 2nd amendment - to prevent the idiots Centuries later from changing (Taking away) the Rights of the people.

    No man/woman has any rights what so ever to tell you what you can or can not do. However, YOU can be punished if you cause damage or injury to someone else.

    Pretty Cut and Dry! If you can not govern yourself and your emotions, then you could pay the price. If you Can't do the Time, Don't do the Crime!

    -- Posted by sui on Sat, Nov 18, 2017, at 1:13 PM
  • Well, QM; I suppose it is a matter of semantics. I said I saw no reasonable excuse for them to be commercially available. I did not say we needed a law to impose common sense. But I can see your interpretation.

    As far as "homogenity" is concerned, those countries are not as "homogenous" as you seem to think. Actual numbers are harder to produce, as having governments track their population by ethnicity is a sensitive subject in Europe since the Nazis put such tracking to the purpose they did. You have to remember, many of these countries had a colonial history, and minorities are nothing new, since people traveled both ways. A best guess at the black and moslem populations in France would put them around 20%. There are also a substantial number of Vietnamese, as each former colonial power now has populations of transplants from their former colonies. And, with the EU, travel and even changing residence between countries is not so uncommon as it once was. There are many people living in every country who originated in others. As far as the "illegal immigrants" by which I assume you mean hispanics, I did not see very many hispanics in Europe. They did have quite a few spaniards (smiley face.) Perhaps a similar population would be the mass influx of immigrants from the former Soviet Republics, fleeing economically depressed countries in favor of the greater opportunities in the Western European nations. Nobody knows how many of those there are, but the number is substantial. Certainly the social issues this mass migration has created are very similar. To be honest, the (to all appearances white) immigrants from Eastern Europe seemed to create more heartache than all the traditional minorities combined. The large cities all had a fair mix of ethnicities obvious in the course of traveling about. The rural communities were more "homogenous" than the cities (unlike such American "melting pots" as Nebraska and Iowa... another smiley face.)Every rural area in which I spent any time did have refugee families, who seemed to be more or less adopted by the local population and integrated into the community. These were communities ranging from a few hundred to maybe a thousand, whose residents go back a lot more generations than any US community.

    But, what I am having the most difficulty in processing is your depiction of the difference between the depressed parts of the large cities. "In Europe no one is telling those in slums their plight is due to people paying 90% of the taxes not paying their fair share. No one in Europe is fomenting a class war like a certain party has done here for decades." I thought the narrative was that Europe was evil because it was "socialist," which has been redefined to mean that the rich are overtaxed to support the poor... remember the "run out of other people's money" line? You seem to simultaneously be espousing two diametrically opposed beliefs.

    However, this is my favorite; "People in slums abroad are overwhelmingly there due to no jobs being available, as evidenced by the work ethic of illegal aliens willing to risk their lives to come here for the opportunities our bums say is impossible to live under.

    Overwhelmingly the people who live in American slums are there due to laziness and/or poor life choices."

    You mean the poor in America are unique, and the only poor people in the world who are just lazy? Everyone else's poor are hardworking people who are just down on their luck? Best of all, these European slums (just like ours) have a disproportionate number of minorites... especially moslems! I am a little surprised to hear you express a favorable opinion of moslems.

    -- Posted by lazarus on Sat, Nov 18, 2017, at 11:26 PM
  • First you claim numbers of ethnic groups in Europe are hard to come by (nevermind a google search shows sources from Pew research, the CIA factbook, Stanford and others) then go on to claim percentages of ethnic groups in France and elsewhere, including claims of the makeup of European slums.

    As for our poor, as I said earlier, compare them to the poor elsewhere. Look at the illegal immigrants here, who, due to their immigration status will overwhelmingly be poor here, yet they risk their lives to come here because of the work opportunities.

    Can you honestly claim there is anything close to parity in the rates of poor looking to come to the US, vs. those looking to leave?

    -- Posted by quietmike on Sun, Nov 19, 2017, at 1:29 AM
  • To more fairly compare the rest of the first world to the US, we can take the EU as a whole, since that shares more commonality with the US than any individual State. They now have free travel between the European States, the same as we have here.The geographic area: the EU covers 3.9 million square miles, compared to the US' 3.7 million. As far as homogenity,there are 23 officially recognized languages in the EU, along with 60 indiginous, regional, and minority languages. This is in addition to the various languages spoken within immigrant communities. The US is the one with a homogenous population. Here are the raw statistics:

    Guns per 100 people: US 112.6 EU 17.3 US 651% more

    Murder rate per 100,000: US 4.88 EU 0.99 US 492% more

    Gun Murder Rate per 100,000: US 3.6 EU .19 US 1,940% more

    Gun Deaths per 100,000: US 10.54 EU 1.28 US 825% more

    Non-Gun Murder Rate: US 1.28 EU 0.81 US 159% more

    Tell me again how more guns make us safer? Even if you blame all the murders on those pesky minorities in the slums (you know the ones, the only lazy poor people in the world) what about the 2/3 of gun deaths that are not murders? Those are not just lazy people in the slums.

    -- Posted by lazarus on Sun, Nov 19, 2017, at 1:52 AM
  • QM, you are trying to tell me about places I have seen with my own eyes. I have been in the inner city in major cities in both the US and overseas... They don't look much different. The only difference between us and the EU is the difference between having rules, and having no rules. If I were an avid supporter of gun rights, rather than making up specious arguments about how "safe" we are by having no rules, I would look at places that have both guns and genuine "safety." Take, for example, Germany (4th highest rate of gun ownership in the world). They have a healthy "gun culture," yet:

    Guns Per 100 people: Germany 30.3 EU 17.3 Germany 175% more

    Murder Rate per 100,000: Germany 0.85 EU 0.99 Germany 86% as high

    Gun Murder Rate per 100,000: Germany 0.07 EU 0.19 Germany 38% as high

    Gun Deaths per 100,000: Germany 1.01 EU 1.28 Germany 78% as high

    Non Gun Murder Rate: Germany 0.78 EU 0.81 Germany 97% as high

    Clearly Germany is doing something right. With nearly double the number of guns, they beat the remainder of the EU in every gun fatality statistic. Yet, judging from the non-gun murder rate, Germans are not really very different, as far as homicidal tendencies, than the rest of the EU. When I have a problem, I have not the least qualms about studying how other people have solved that same problem, and seeing if I can adapt their solutions to my own situation. I do not spend my time trying to think up reasons why my failing approach is really the best. you know what our gun issue reminds me of? Butch Jones offense. Right up until his last game he refused to change, and instead kept explaining why his offense really did work. His effort would have been better applied to studying other teams' offenses... the ones that actually moved the ball and scored.

    -- Posted by lazarus on Sun, Nov 19, 2017, at 2:33 AM
  • Anecdotal evidence takes precedence over statistical data? You saw european slums eith your own eyes, so that's all that's needed?

    Guns per 100 people: US 112.6 EU 17.3 US 651% more

    Murder rate per 100,000: US 4.88 EU 0.99 US 492% more

    If guns are the problem, why isn't the difference in the murder rate in US at least as high as the difference in the gun ownership rate?

    -- Posted by quietmike on Sun, Nov 19, 2017, at 7:46 AM
  • Compared with what source for the startling revelation that our poor are uniquely different from those elsewhere on earth?

    Don't cherry pick... The gun murder rate is 3 times the difference in gun ownership. And, as I said, the nature of the gun laws in the different countries has an equal bearing on these figures.

    -- Posted by lazarus on Sun, Nov 19, 2017, at 10:19 AM
  • The fact that the number of poor trying to come to America far, FAR, outnumber the poor trying to escape the US.

    So a gun murder is somehow worse than a different murder?

    Talk about cherry picking!

    -- Posted by quietmike on Sun, Nov 19, 2017, at 11:12 AM
  • sorry QM. There are no statistics to support the idea that absent guns, other murders occur instead. Quite the opposite.

    -- Posted by lazarus on Sun, Nov 19, 2017, at 3:06 PM
  • Sure there are. The ones you desperately tried to avoid above.

    -- Posted by quietmike on Sun, Nov 19, 2017, at 3:16 PM
  • I do not remember, and could not find above, any actual evidence of a rise in non gun murders in the absence of guns. Of course, I haven't searched the trusty momswhohateguns.com or moregunsmakeussafe.org for slanted or fabricated information. Looking at actual data instead, it would seem that there is a pretty fair correlation between fewer gun homicides and fewer non-gun homicides.

    -- Posted by lazarus on Sun, Nov 19, 2017, at 8:14 PM
  • "The fact that the number of poor trying to come to America far, FAR, outnumber the poor trying to escape the US."

    How does that prove that our poor are lazy, and other countries' poor are industrious?

    -- Posted by lazarus on Mon, Nov 20, 2017, at 12:43 AM
  • Your numbers, above, the full murder rate, show that murders still happen absent guns. Also England having a "bin the blade" campaign in response several stabbing murders, after their gun bans shows the same.

    If there are opportunities enough to entice poor people to come here from other countries, often with nothing but the clothes they're wearing, with no command of the language, leaving their families and everything they know behind, then the opportunities here are much better than those of the countries they're leaving.

    Have you EVER seen poor Americans build a raft from trash to try to make it to Cuba?

    -- Posted by quietmike on Mon, Nov 20, 2017, at 3:07 AM
  • This is like saying that, since you can get lung cancer even without smoking, smoking more will protect you from lung cancer. Stands to reason; if smoke damages the lungs, maybe more smoke would kill the cancer, too. The statistics stand on their own, and no amount of crafting arguments moves even one figure.

    And I am still trying to figure out what point you want to make about our poor. Building a raft to get to Cuba would not demonstrate that they are industrious, only that they were stupid. The US having more opportunities does not make them "lazy." Now, if you are comparing them to the selected percentage of poor from other countries who have the drive to get themselves here, I have no doubt they are "lazier." So would be most of the non-poor. Out of any population, the ones who emigrate are smarter and more ambitious than the ones who stay in place (statistically speaking.) But, I understand your sentiment. When I see the Trump supporters who lacked the drive (or ability) to get an education, or the ones whose careers were in dying industries, and they cast their votes in hope that he will miraculously provide high paying jobs for unskilled workers, or turn back time and make moribund industries vibrant again, I sort of classify them as "lazy." The computer made me obsolete, too. But, I did not look around for someone to fix that for me. I figured out a different direction.

    -- Posted by lazarus on Mon, Nov 20, 2017, at 9:34 AM
  • Ever heard of projection?

    Dems are lazy. Their entire ideology is based on it. Ive challenged you, and the other libs, to name a major platform or piece of legislation of democrats in the past 50 years that isn't based on avoiding adult responsibility and making someone else pay the bills. Not surprisingly, you didn't have an answer.

    -- Posted by quietmike on Mon, Nov 20, 2017, at 12:50 PM
  • Me, "and the other libs." You might have overprojected. Why would I be expected to defend the Democrats?

    -- Posted by lazarus on Mon, Nov 20, 2017, at 6:07 PM
  • Probably because your ideology and arguments are indistinguishable?

    -- Posted by quietmike on Mon, Nov 20, 2017, at 7:30 PM
  • What ideology is that? Is it because I don't deny math and science?

    -- Posted by lazarus on Mon, Nov 20, 2017, at 8:41 PM
  • Science like operant conditioning?

    Rewarding poor behavior and punishing good will somehow encourage good behavior?

    -- Posted by quietmike on Tue, Nov 21, 2017, at 2:53 AM
  • I don't know what you are talking about?

    -- Posted by lazarus on Tue, Nov 21, 2017, at 7:49 AM
  • A perfect reply..(-:

    Serously though, our progressive tax plan and various welfare programs.

    -- Posted by quietmike on Tue, Nov 21, 2017, at 9:06 AM
  • Sorry; the conversation shifted so fast that you lost me. It appears to have split into two very different topics, basically neither related to the previous discussion. But neither of which I really object to following. I hope poor Carl does not see this, as he does not easily accept wandering trains of thought. (Actually, I think the only response he can accept is "You are right, Carl. No thinking human can have an opinion different than yours!")

    A "progressive tax plan" is not really something I object to in principle. Looking around me, I have received more than an equal share of benefit. I don't live hand to mouth. I can indulge in costly leisure activities, just because that is what I like to do. If I pay in a little more than people who barely make enough to get by, it won't mean that I don't eat. Of course, I don't base that on my judgement of how those people came to have barely enough to get by. Some are surely enough just lazy. The biggest part of them, I am convinced, simply lack the basic skills to handle their own finances. The very existence of payday loan businesses, rent to own, and car title loans bears out that point (in my mind.) I have worked side by side with some very hard working poor people, for whom their inherent ability limited how far they would ever get.

    I do not favor a regressive tax system. Sales tax is a regressive tax, particularly one that exempts luxury items. A sales tax on food and clothing hits those people who are barely getting by hard. If I made a million dollars a year (which I by no means do) I would still require the same amount of food and clothing as someone making $20,000 a year. Sales tax disproportionately hits people who must spend every penny they bring in to survive. If we were to have a sales tax, it should *only* apply to non-necessities.

    I am not favorably inclined to the use of taxes to try to alter people's behavior. Using taxes to enact social engineering means trying to make people behave in the way that one set of people think others should behave. Nothing goes against my idea of freedom more than other people telling me how I should live... even if i agreed with them.

    I think the government should only be able to have one tax, not the seven billion taxes we have now. All taxes should be collected at one level, and then distributed between the different levels of government. You could have all taxes collected at the local level, and then the State can only collect their share from local governments, and the federal government can only collect from the States. Alternatively, the Federal Government collects all taxes, and funds the states, which then fund the local governments. This idea would save a fortune in the cost of processing all the moneys flowing up and down the pipeline as the various governments waste fortunes trying to control things they should leave well enough alone. If there is one thing we would know from having one tax... we would know how much the government actually gets in funding. Trust me, no one really knows the way things are done now.

    In addition to the one tax, I am a big believer in user fees. Those who take advantage of government services should, by and large, pay for them. Some government services do not lend themselves to user fees, because the use is difficult to define. Transportation systems are hard to pinpoint the beneficiaries. Even tho we individually may use only a tiny fraction of the roads, we enjoy the collateral benefits of having food on the shelves of the grocery stores, and a generally functional economy with goods and services readily available. Police and Fire service is really applicable to everyone, even tho only a small percentage of us will have the misfortune to require their direct service. On the other hand; codes, garbage pickup, power, water, and sewer... those are utilized by the people who directly benefit. Power, water, and sewer can be further broken down, because the facilities are realistically too expensive to be paid up front by the consumers. Building those facilities should be a government expense, in order to avoid borrowing money for the purpose... which brings me to another topic that you have not mentioned; government finance. I have strong ideas on how government finances should be structured and reported. suffice it to say (for the purposes of this discussion) the government should never borrow money. Borrowing money is only a way for the government (and, by extension the taxpayer) to pay more for the same thing. In business, we can do an analysis to see if we will ultimately see more profit than interest expense when evaluating whether or not to borrow money. Since the government makes a profit on nothing that it does (and should not), there is no reasonable way to justify borrowing money.

    Now, what should our *one tax* be? I can float several ideas, each with its own positives and negatives. How about a 100% estate tax? Why should any working person pay taxes on what they earn? Why should the children of the 1% never have to hit a lick in their whole lives? Maybe I am biased because I started my independent life with a change of clothes in a backpack. Maybe I have some of your distaste for lazy people, and am just more biased towards lazy people who were born on third base, and think they hit a triple than I am towards lazy people who will never get out of the batters' box. Of course, there is the issue of the family farm, the family home, and all of us wanting to leave our kids at least a little something. So that is not going to be workable... still, it is fun to throw it out there. How about property tax? property tax is one of the most evenly distributed taxes. Maybe the owners actually pay it, but they pass it on thru what they charge those who utilize the property. The weakness of this is that purely financial transactions, in other words large segments of the economy, would be largely untaxed. A disproportionate share of the burden would fall on individuals, creating ultimately a regressive tax system. Which leaves us with income tax. There are two basic problems with income tax. First, we have this tradition of a complex system, driven by the desire to alter behavior and favor one group over another. Even in our current drive for tax "reform," we have come up with a "reform" that does not make taxes one whit less complex (if anything, more complex), and thus far promises to result in nothing except a larger deficit and a higher percentage of the taxes being paid by the middle class. The other problem is defining "income." I think it is largely lost on those whose income is a paycheck, the complexity of "income" at the higher levels. Under the best of circumstances, it will require some pretty complex laws to define "income" for those who do not make their living by working for a paycheck.

    Anyway, this is just an opening salvo in discussing my opinions on a very complex subject. I won't make this much longer by weighing in on "welfare." But I will burden you with a few thoughts: The concept of a society providing a safety net is the difference between us and animals. However, I think the people who designed the current systems demonstrated a basic failure to understand human motivations. We are, deep down, no different than bears. If you allow bears to feed at the dump, they will teach their offspring to feed at the dump. That is where the food is. That does not make bears lazy or evil. Bears have survived millions of years by being able to learn where the food is, and passing that knowledge on to their offspring. We "get" that feeding at the dump is not good for bears, so we have removed the dumps. We should "get" that learning to apply for government assistance as a life skill is not good for people. And we should alter the structure of our safety net to end that cycle. The people who slowly built our current system had good intentions. But, they failed to understand bears. Secondly, a lot of the current "welfare" system was built with the complicit assistance of "big business." Having the government take your money and mine to subsidize paychecks that are too small to live on is good for big business. And they do not want that to end. The working poor are the biggest class of welfare recipients. Most people really do want to work. Take away the welfare, and they would not be able to work. Who would go to work every day, and slowly starve? That would be stupid. Let business pay a living wage, and stop having the government take my money to subsidize their wages.

    -- Posted by lazarus on Tue, Nov 21, 2017, at 11:37 AM
  • You don't have a problem with progressive taxation and safety nets are what separate us from the animals.....

    A simple mea culpa would have sufficed.

    -- Posted by quietmike on Tue, Nov 21, 2017, at 3:00 PM
  • Sui, what did you do to lazarus?😄

    -- Posted by fair share on Tue, Nov 21, 2017, at 3:19 PM
  • Sorry, QM. I come from an older version of "conservative," where dystopia is not the ideal society. Rather than being driven by the fear that anything I do will somehow benefit someone else, I feel like we have an obligation to make some contribution to society. I am sure you would be mortified to find out that I contribute as much of my income as I keep. As far as the second part is concerned; there are two neanderthal skeletons that weigh heavily in how we look at their species. One is that of a child of about 12, with a congenitally crippled skeleton. The other is a relatively elderly individual (relatively, because neanderthals did not live long by our standards) who had no teeth. The toothless mouth had "healed," indicating the individual lived for some time without teeth. Neither of those individuals could have lived long enough to produce those skeletons, unless the members of a nomadic tribe had taken the time and used the resources to care for them. Looking back across hundreds of thousands of years, those two skeletons mark the neanderthal as "human" and not just another wild ape. It is a shame that out of my (admittedly sui length) post, the only thing you could focus on was that it failed to demonstrate sufficient greed and selfishness. (you know, there was a time when those were not considered the standards of "conservatism")

    -- Posted by lazarus on Wed, Nov 22, 2017, at 9:01 AM
  • I'm glad you are safely back, laz. I'm not speaking for quietmike, but I don't see him holding up greed and selfishness as conservative standards. Unless you consider personal responsibility for you and yours being greedy and selfish. I wonder what form of governance the Neanderthals had? Democracy? Republic? I suspect they were more like Larry the Cable Guy. "Getter done." See what needs done, then do it. I'm sure you know conservatives tend to be bigger givers than liberals. (You may be more conservative than I thought.) Why? Because we have compassion for others. We are all 1 big family, after all. I assume some libs also have that. But we also know that the way to help people is individually, not by government mandate. And we also know helping doesn't always mean just throwing money at the situation. We are familiar with the definition of "enabler". It is also the most fun thing you can do with your money. Now I'm thinking about the old joke if someone says they are from the guvment and here to help, you better run the other way.

    Btw, if interested in giving to legitimate worthwhile causes, people might want to Google "Right Steps Inc" out of Georgia, "Liberty in North Korea" out of California, or "Saving Our Cats and Kittens" out of Fort Walton Beach, FL.

    -- Posted by fair share on Wed, Nov 22, 2017, at 9:46 AM
  • Laz,

    Libs will find any number of excuses, er, reasons why they shouldn't have to accept adult responsibilities and should be supported by someone else.

    Numerous studies show the average American in long term poverty is there through laziness and/or poor life choices.

    Finish school, get a job, get married, and have children, IN THAT ORDER, would resolve 90% of long term poverty cases.

    No handout, no matter how carefully described in feel good flowery words will change that. Changes in behavoir will.

    Fair,

    You nailed the part about enabling. Pain is the universal catalyst for change. If bad behavior has no negative consequence, there is no reason to change it.

    Libs, as usual, are lazy. See a poor person, throw (someone else's) money at them. Never stopping to evaluate why they're poor to begin with, as that answer won't allow them to buy votes.

    -- Posted by quietmike on Wed, Nov 22, 2017, at 11:11 AM
  • Laz

    I do have a question about seemingly dichotomous statements you've made.

    First you said "Nothing goes against my idea of freedom more than other people telling me how I should live... even if i agreed with them."

    Then you go on to support progressive taxation and welfare programs while explaining how much you give in charity.

    How are government charity programs not covered under you first statement?

    Furthermore, what part of free market capitalism prevents anyone from practicing charity toward any entity they choose?

    -- Posted by quietmike on Wed, Nov 22, 2017, at 11:35 AM
  • Most past presidents either spend Thanksgiving Day feeding the homeless or visiting our troops abroad.Trump has spent all day in a petty twitter war with a father of a ball player and golfing.Once again he prefers to go to Florida and cost taxpayer close to 3 million dollars again.

    -- Posted by lets be real on Wed, Nov 22, 2017, at 11:30 PM
  • Thanks for that completely random and irrelevant post.

    -- Posted by quietmike on Thu, Nov 23, 2017, at 5:50 AM
  • I wonder why that guy is so ticked off that Trump got his son out of China? Idiots should take note and behave when abroad. Next time Trump may not waste his time and effort saving a criminal thug from his own stupidity only to be ridiculed.

    Happy Thanksgiving everyone. I'm thankful for our forefathers who secured for us a country in which we are only limited by our desire and work ethic. I hope we as a group have the common sense and decency to pass it on to future generations. At least for now it is looking like we will.

    -- Posted by fair share on Thu, Nov 23, 2017, at 6:19 AM
  • Mikey might be on to something here. Maybe it is time for our country's biggest moochers and welfare queens to pull themselves up by their boot straps and make a contribution.

    So who are these lazy moochers?

    Well, according to tax studies and census bureau statistics the biggest dependents of government assistance are Republicans. 95% of the 100 poorest countries in the U.S. are in deeply red states. It's the trailer park Trump supporters that get more food stamps, welfare, etc., than anyone.

    Like Mikey says, maybe we should stop throwing money at these lazy republican bums.

    -- Posted by RocketValentine on Thu, Nov 23, 2017, at 8:33 AM
  • RV

    You've used those lazy (big surprise) statistics for quite a while now.

    I guess libs arent intelligent enough to realize that states and counties don't vote, people do.

    Even NPR admits the longer you go without working the higher chance you'll vote democrat.

    http://www.npr.org/assets/news/2011/12/poll/topline.pdf

    2/3 of the entire federal budget goes to entitlement programs, all created by democrats, because they're too stupid and/or lazy to run their own affairs.

    Every major platform and piece of legislation of democrats is based on avoiding adult responsibility and making someone else pay the bills.

    Democrats scream like an intern in the Clinton white house at the mention of cutting freebies. Democrats oppose turning charity over to the states.

    Democrats oppose scrapping government charity to let the market handle it.

    Democrats can't answer what part of the free market prevents charity(are dems too stupid to figure out how to donate to charity without government).

    RV will flippantly claim we should eliminate handouts, but let it really come down to a vote, and we see who the deadbeat loser democrats always support... the ones promising more freebies.

    Some libs are so completely useless human beings, even the democrats aren't offering enough freebies, so they support a shiftless socialist bum like Bernie Sanders.

    Democrats innately know they are pathetic losers. Look at the quickest way to spur democrats into a frenzy.

    Big Oil

    Big corporations

    Big pharma

    Big business

    The handlers realize mentioning big anything will instantly remind democrats of how small, empty, and inadequate they feel inside, and they will rally to destroy that reminder of their uselessness.

    They only big anything conservatives hate is big government, as democrats have always used it to force others to work to support their laziness.

    -- Posted by quietmike on Thu, Nov 23, 2017, at 9:07 AM
  • Hello, again, QM. I guess I am having a little trouble answering your question. A progressive tax system doesn't really seem like someone telling me how to live. And it does not seem unfair. While I might have a certain arrogant pride about having earned everything I have, I had certain unearned advantages. My parents, and other adults who influenced me during my youth were not some earned benefit. I was just lucky. I was fortunate enough to not have to work as hard to get thru college as most of those around me. I was able to comprehend and retain the material without a lot of difficulty. That was not something I deserved any more than the next person. But none of that might have meant anything without the last advantage. Being white and male required no input on my part, it just happened. But, it sure made everything else a lot easier.

    So, sure, I made good decisions. And, I did without some things when I was young, so that I would have more when I was old. But, I also had advantages that others did not have that helped me along the way. I have benefited more from the opportunities of America than many, and it seems fair to me to pay a little more back.

    -- Posted by lazarus on Thu, Nov 23, 2017, at 9:26 AM
  • Mike, the people in those states and counties that get the most government assistance voted Republican and overwhelmingly voted for Trump.

    So these entitlement programs may have been created by Democrats, but the people you claim that are "too stupid and/or lazy to run their own affairs" and the very ones that benefit from these programs are Republican voters.

    You Republicans really need to quit avoiding your adult responsibilities.

    Blues states have been paying your way now for decades. Step it up and quit counting on Democrats to provide you with freebies.

    -- Posted by RocketValentine on Thu, Nov 23, 2017, at 10:01 AM
  • I am going to try to avoid the sui rambling post, by hitting one point at a time, QM (smiley face).

    I realize the standard talking point is that welfare programs are "forced charity." I think that is something of a stretch. Of course, you realize I said "safety net," not "welfare programs." The neanderthal comparison is perfect. No, the neanderthal did not have government stepping in. Nor did they live in cities with millions of inhabitants. If we still lived in small communities, the communities would take care of their own. But, we don't. And my faith in the "market" taking care of the less fortunate is pretty much nil. I have first hand experience at every level of society, from the street to the mansion. And there is one thing that has not escaped my notice. Generosity tends to be inversely proportional to wealth. Poor people help each other out. The wealthy might make those big contributions that show up as more "giving," but on a personal level the poor are more generous. If some catastrophe occurred, and I found myself on the street again, it would be someone who had nothing but the cash in his pocket that would buy me a meal. The guy in the $3,000 suit driving a Cadillac would lock his doors and accelerate.

    Where we would agree, is that the current system of welfare is an abomination, that does more towards creating a welfare state than it does helping people break the cycle of poverty. Those who set it up might have had the best of intentions, but it has become self perpetuating. Other parts of the system (such as SSI and earned income credit) are monstrosities that do more harm than good. We need to seriously re-evaluate these failed systems, and transition to something different. Unfortunately, our polarized political options at the moment are: pour even more money into something that doesn't work or cut people loose, and toss them out to die.

    -- Posted by lazarus on Thu, Nov 23, 2017, at 10:02 AM
  • RV

    Completely unsurprised you were too lazy to read the NPR link and address it.

    Look at the red state of Tennessee. Welfare use is concentrated in a few big democrat run cities like memphis.

    If you truly want to shut down government welfare, it's a simple matter, just vote for the ones always trying to cut it instead of democrats.

    -- Posted by quietmike on Thu, Nov 23, 2017, at 10:23 AM
  • Laz,

    Perhaps we have different definitions of forced.

    I'm going by the dictionary defintion, ie, compel someone to do something against their will.

    Using this definition, welfare programs must be described as forced charity, since not paying your taxes will result in prison time... coercion.

    -- Posted by quietmike on Thu, Nov 23, 2017, at 10:26 AM
  • -- Posted by quietmike on Thu, Nov 23, 2017, at 10:31 AM
  • LAZ,

    If you're referring to the rate of giving vs income/wealth you'd be correct. If you're looking at dollars given that might not be true. Bill Gates has donated 28 billion. It would take lots of $20 donations from West Virginia to reach that level.

    -- Posted by quietmike on Thu, Nov 23, 2017, at 10:45 AM
  • Rv

    More for you.

    https://www.rollcall.com/politics/unemployment-report-defies-conventional-wisdom...

    https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/onpolitics/2017/05/10/poll-unemploy...

    I know logic isn't your native language, but states and counties neither vote nor receive assistance. Every study about individuals show democrats always carry the moocher vote.

    The entire reason for political parties is to represent the interests of their constituents. Dems have ALWAYS been about freebies. If democrats were being hurt by freebies, they'd abandon them as a platform.

    -- Posted by quietmike on Thu, Nov 23, 2017, at 11:09 AM
  • Have to give Trump credit calling the troops today to brag about "How he was letting them do their job".He also bragged about the good economy he was handed and his tax reform that will never pass.

    -- Posted by lets be real on Thu, Nov 23, 2017, at 12:14 PM
  • The military is thankful Trump is letting them do their job as well. No more ridiculous rules of engagement like obummer had.

    https://www.militarytimes.com/flashpoints/2017/10/03/mattis-reveals-new-rules-of...

    -- Posted by quietmike on Thu, Nov 23, 2017, at 12:21 PM
  • Mike, just because poor, uneducated, rural, registered republicans tend vote against their best interests, doesn't change the fact that they are the biggest recipients federal assistance.

    And it's just not pockets of liberals in big cities of reds states like your example of Memphis.

    If that was the case New York and California would easily be the most dependent on federal funds.

    95 of the poorest 100 counties in the U.S. are republican run in deeply conservative areas.

    I guess you can believe a pew research poll, or you can believe tax studies and the census bureau.

    Those studies show the people living in the south in republican run counties, that vote republican, are the biggest moochers.

    Mississippi, Alabama, Arkansas.

    -- Posted by RocketValentine on Thu, Nov 23, 2017, at 8:43 PM
  • RV

    Try breathing through your nose and wipe your chin.

    Now that we have the drooling mouth breathing taken care of..

    One more time

    States and counties don't vote or receive welfare, individuals do.

    Everything you've mentioned is about how a people in a state or county votes and the rate of welfare use in a state or county. Nevermind you completely likable habit of never posting any sources to back up your assertions.

    I have given you four different links, from sources on various points on the political spectrum, that show individuals on assistance vote democrat.

    But like any good little liberal, you ignore facts to live in your alternate reality world.

    I know it must be tough to be responsible for making your own argument and backing it up with factual data when your entire ideology is based on having government take care of you through every stage of your life.

    But this part is pretty simple....

    Find a study showing how INDIVIDUALS on assistance vote, like I've done in the four examples above, and see if any show most people on assistance not voting for dems.

    Sorry for this lengthy post. I know by now you're probably moving you lips as you read, which lead to a return to the mouth breathing, so let me repost the four sources showing individual deadbeats voting democrat.

    http://www.npr.org/assets/news/2011/12/poll/topline.pdf

    http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2013/07/12/the-politics-and-demographics-of......

    https://www.rollcall.com/politics/unemployment-report-defies-conventional-wisdom...

    https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/onpolitics/2017/05/10/poll-unemploy...

    -- Posted by quietmike on Fri, Nov 24, 2017, at 4:16 AM
  • Mikey, Mikey, Mikey, bless your heart.

    I know you're trying to understand.

    You posted links "that show individuals on assistance vote democrat."

    The argument here is not about who VOTES for entitlement programs, but who RECEIVES them.

    Your argument that "states don't receive welfare, individuals do", rings as hollow as the ridiculousness "guns don't kill people, people do" quote.

    Let's take a look at Mississippi, the number one most dependent state of government welfare. It's also one of the most conservative. It's run almost completely by republicans. And it does also mostly vote republican. That's why it's referred to as a "red state".

    When you claim that "states don't vote, people do", that really makes no sense.

    You do realize that states are compromised of people? And these people also vote and receive government benefits?

    Now I can post endless links with these statistics, but it's easier just to post the basic facts and see if you refute them. 16 of the 20 states that receive the most government assistance are Republican dominated conservative states. Now, do you disagree with this fact?

    95 of the 100 poorest counties are located in republican run "red states".

    Do you disagree with this fact?

    It's pretty easy to understand. I hope that helps you out.

    -- Posted by RocketValentine on Fri, Nov 24, 2017, at 8:09 AM
  • Ok, QM. Taking the Pew report. 18% of Americans have received food stamps *at some point* in their lives. That does not mean 18% are on food stamps, just that, at some point, they were on food stamps. 22% of Democratic voters were on food stamps *at some point. *That does not mean 22% are on them now, just that they were at some point. This really is weak support for the notion that *ALL* democrats are bums looking for a handout. Since the overall percentage of Americans who have *at some point* received food stamps is almost the same as that of Democrat voters, you would have to say that *ALL* Americans are bums looking for a handout. Food stamp recipients *at some point* are not unrepresented among republican voters. Those stand at 10%. Extending your logic, if 22% is equal to ALL, then I would assume that 10% means that HALF of Republicans are bums looking for handouts?

    Painting with a broad brush seems to be the core of political thought these days. looking at a different Pew poll, we find that the strongest area of current Republican support comes from white men who either have no college education or dropped out without completing college. So, from the other side we get the narrative that *ALL* Republicans are uneducated white men. http://www.people-press.org/2016/09/13/2-party-affiliation-among-voters-1992-201...

    Given the harsh judgement passed on *all* democrats based on the first poll, it is not hard to extrapolate that similar judgements apply to the various ethnic groups listed; all with higher than the average percentage of *at some time* food stamp recipients.

    Back when I was part of the working world, I needed to add a position to my staff. Looking at the requirements of the position, it seemed ideal for an entry-level job. There was plenty of more senior staff already in place, and the new position could be structured so that fresh college graduate could gain real world experience. If we picked the right candidate, the company would benefit from having a bright, hard working employee at somewhat lower salary than we would have to pay for someone more experienced. The new employee would benefit from getting one of those scarce entry level jobs. College provides a base of knowledge in the field, and demonstrates that the applicant has enough intelligence and drive to successfully obtain a degree (unlike those lazy or stupid Republican voters... smiley face), but no education is complete without actual hands on experience. It was my expectation that the individual we hired would, after a year or two in the position, have a resume to find a better position somewhere else. Even though it would mean refilling the position every few years, this seemed like a good arrangement for all concerned.

    Out of the first collection of resumes, I selected 6 potential candidates to interview. Then I passed those resumes on to my boss for his approval. After reviewing the resumes, he called me in with a question. He was concerned about one of my selections. While 5 of them could be called during the day, and were available immediately, the 6th was unavailable during the day, and would have to give 2 weeks notice at his current job... he was working at a factory.

    I pointed out the other things that could be gleaned from the resume. His name (if you will forgive my racial profiling) would indicate that he was most likely black. And, while the other 5 home addresses were in affluent neighborhoods, his was in a poor neighborhood. Translating the information available on the resumes, out of my 6 candidates, 5 of them had graduated college (probably primarily paid for by their parents) and were living "in their parents' basement" while seeking their first real job. The 6th had somehow come up with the resources to get the same degree. But, his family could not support him while he sought that first "real job." I felt like the interviews confirmed my interpretation. Five applicants came in immaculately groomed, and wearing expensive new interview outfits. The sixth was wearing a clean and pressed, but decidedly "shiny" suit. I would say the odds are pretty good that only one of those applicants had ever received food stamp assistance during their lives.... Would it be appropriate for me to label him as a "lazy bum looking for a handout?"

    -- Posted by lazarus on Fri, Nov 24, 2017, at 8:53 AM
  • I've met some stupid people on my time, but you take the cake.

    One.... more..... time..... slowly.... so.....it... might..... even.... sink... in.... for.... a.... dummy...

    Individuals..... get...welfare...and.....individuals.... vote...

    You...keep...making... claims... about... states... that... receive...the...most...welfare...

    Look...up...individual...voting... patterns...of....people... on... welfare... or... simply..

    read... the... links... I've... posted...

    Or... read... your...own...last...post...again...

    In... it... you... posted...

    You posted links "that show individuals on assistance vote democrat."

    The argument here is not about who VOTES for entitlement programs, but who RECEIVES them.

    I... know...you... are... a...complete...idiot...but...even...someone... as... stupid... as... you... can... understand... what... it... means... when... INDIVIDUALS....ON...ASSISTANCE... VOTE.... DEMOCRAT...means..

    Once... more... INDIVIDUALS... ON... ASSISTANCE..

    Try...running...that...line...past... a...mentally....handicapped... six.... year... old...and...have...them...explain...it...to...you...

    -- Posted by quietmike on Fri, Nov 24, 2017, at 8:58 AM
  • LAZ

    That's a nice attempt at spin, but misses the point.

    The claim is who those on the dole vote for. Even your quote of the study shows they vote democrat more often.

    To be sure not every democrat voter is on the dole. Some have found ways to exploit those people, such as the Al Gores and Hillary Clintons.

    Some are ultra rich, such as actors, who've never lived in the real working world, and see poor people and think, "something should be done", but wouldn't deign to get their own hands dirty.

    Others are foolish idealists, who think full government control of everything could work...this time.... if we just have the right people in control.

    The essential difference this all boils down to is who you want to make the decisions about your life.

    If you think you should control your own life, and accept the consequences of your choices, then you won't vote democrat.If you know deep. down you're not responsible enough to run your own life you will.

    I notice you didn't address the definition of forced.

    -- Posted by quietmike on Fri, Nov 24, 2017, at 9:44 AM
  • "When you claim that "states don't vote, people do", that really makes no sense.

    You do realize that states are compromised of people?"

    Posted by RocketValentine on Fri, Nov 24, 2017, at 8:09 AM

    People of certain persuasions seem to have trouble separating individuals from the government. And historically it has served people like Stalin, and others, very well.

    -- Posted by fair share on Fri, Nov 24, 2017, at 10:52 AM
  • Mikey, I guess it could be impressive that you took the time to type that all out. But your lame attempt at humor still failed to answer the two simple questions I asked.

    -- Posted by RocketValentine on Fri, Nov 24, 2017, at 6:17 PM
  • No spin, QM. You make sweeping statements based on data that does not support them. From one small fact you draw conclusions about an entire population, the vast majority of whom, the factoid does not apply. All you are really producing is invective.

    -- Posted by lazarus on Fri, Nov 24, 2017, at 9:11 PM
  • RV,

    That 6 year old couldn't dumb it down enough to make you understand.

    One more time (and libs say conservatives aren't charitable).

    You posted links "that show individuals on assistance vote democrat."

    The argument here is not about who VOTES for entitlement programs, but who RECEIVES them.

    Individuals on assistance

    Individuals ON assistance.

    I don't know what that means in that goofy backwards world you live in, but for every other person on earth, an INDIVIDUAL ON ASSISTANCE means someone on some type of welfare program.

    BTW-Thank you for your contributions on these blogs.

    You and LBR defending democrat policies makes a better argument against liberalism than anyone who opposes them.

    -- Posted by quietmike on Sat, Nov 25, 2017, at 3:04 AM
  • Laz

    Yes spin.

    As pointed out before, the argument was who individuals on the dole voted for. Instead of addressing that issue, you spun it and argued that not every democrat voter was on the dole, which was never the argument.

    All you produce is more evidence that liberals use emotional arguments as facts never support their positions.

    -- Posted by quietmike on Sat, Nov 25, 2017, at 3:09 AM
  • Laz

    I notice you still didn't address the definition of forced.

    -- Posted by quietmike on Sat, Nov 25, 2017, at 3:24 AM
  • Two simple questions Mikey.

    16 of the 20 states that receive the most government assistance are Republican run "red states".

    And yes, the people/individuals in these states overwhelmingly vote republican.

    Do you disagree with this fact?

    95 of the poorest 100 counties in the U.S. are located in republican run "red states".

    Do you agree with this fact?

    Just answer the question. Is it that hard?

    -- Posted by RocketValentine on Sat, Nov 25, 2017, at 5:03 AM
  • As I said earlier, I've seen some dummies, but you take the prize.

    What part of individuals on assistance vote democrat don't you get?

    What part of states and counties don't vote or receive assistance don't you get?

    Let's play along with your stupidity a bit, shall we?

    Who did bedford county vote for for president?

    Who cast that vote? Does the county mayor, the sheriff, or one of our judges?

    In which district was that vote from our county cast?

    Is that vote cast in the same district every year? Surely with such an important single vote, they'd alternate districts so everyone could enjoy the pomp and circumstance.

    I know this will all go over your head, heck the marianas trench goes over your head.

    Seriously, try to get someone else to explain it to you.

    -- Posted by quietmike on Sat, Nov 25, 2017, at 6:26 AM
  • Wow Mikey, you would make a great politician. No matter how many times I ask you to answer two simple questions, you just talk all around them and totally avoid giving a simple, yes or no, answer. Well done. And hilarious.

    -- Posted by RocketValentine on Sat, Nov 25, 2017, at 10:39 AM
  • Here's another one for you.

    Mississippi receives more government assistance,(food stamps, welfare, etc.) than any other state.

    It also is run by Republicans, Governor, Senators, etc.

    The people of that state, the INDIVIDUALS, overwhelmingly vote republican.

    Do you dispute this?

    Can you answer that simple question?????

    Yes or no?

    C'mon man, give it a shot.

    -- Posted by RocketValentine on Sat, Nov 25, 2017, at 10:51 AM
  • RV

    too stupid to understand. Good. I'll keep it up for the free advertising, demonstrating what an average democrat is like.

    Mississippi receives government assistance?

    What's Mississippi's mailing address where those checks go?

    Who's name is on the envelope?

    Who is authorized to spend it?

    Did Mississippi get a blood test for all it's dependants to make sure they're really Mississippi's?

    Where does Mississippi go to apply for assistance, and more importantly how does it get there?

    -- Posted by quietmike on Sat, Nov 25, 2017, at 11:32 AM
  • I'll clue you in on some reality.

    Mississippi, and every other state, is just dirt with imaginary lines around it.

    The difference is in its inhabitants... the individuals.

    -- Posted by quietmike on Sat, Nov 25, 2017, at 11:34 AM
  • Hey, now you're getting it. The welfare checks and food stamps go to the addresses of the INDIVIDUALS that live in Mississippi. Those same INDIVIDUALS that also vote republican.

    See how that works?

    I knew you could figure it out if you just applied yourself.

    -- Posted by RocketValentine on Sat, Nov 25, 2017, at 12:03 PM
  • You should be in a museum. Your level of stupidity should be studied on a global level.

    I'm the one who's been trying to talk about individuals for three days. Remember the 4 links about INDIVIDUALS ON ASSISTANCE voting for democrats?

    Remember your post?

    You posted links "that show individuals on assistance vote democrat."

    The argument here is not about who VOTES for entitlement programs, but who RECEIVES them.

    Did you get paint chips as Christmas presents when you were young?

    -- Posted by quietmike on Sat, Nov 25, 2017, at 1:39 PM
  • Since we've tried other methods, how about a play?

    Person 1 - "Did you know Mississippi has the highest rates of assistance use in the country and Mississippi usually goes republican?"

    Person 2- "Does everyone in Mississippi use assistance?"

    Person 1-"No"

    Person 2- "Does everyone in Mississippi vote republican?"

    Person 1- "No."

    Person 2-waiting with eyebrow raised for it to "click".

    Person 1-"OH! You mean since it's not 100% assistance use or 100% republican vote, it's a meaningless statistic, and we should look for correlations between how individuals vote and whether or not they use assistance."

    Person 2-"Exactly."

    RV-sitting in the corner rubbing his own feces through his hair - "Duuuuuurrruuuuuur!"

    -- Posted by quietmike on Sat, Nov 25, 2017, at 1:49 PM
  • Ok, I'll play.

    Person 1- Did you know Mississippi is run by republicans, votes republican, and the INDIVIDUALS in that state receive more welfare and food stamps than any other state?

    Person 2- Do 100% of the people get assistance?

    Person 1- No State has 100% assistance. But the people of conservative Mississippi receive more welfare than even the most liberal bastions such as New York or California.

    Person 2- Does everyone in Mississippi vote republican?

    Person 1- The majority do, yes. And did you also know that 16 of the 20 states that receive the most government assistance are also republican run red states?

    Person 2- Wow! Maybe it's time Republicans stop avoiding their adult responsibilities and quit being such moochers for freebies.

    Mikey now wondering what name calling he can use this time to try to prove his frivolous point.

    -- Posted by RocketValentine on Sat, Nov 25, 2017, at 2:31 PM
  • Person 1-Do the majority of people in Mississippi get assistance?

    Person 2-No and even if the percentage of people on assistance perfectly matched the percentage of those voting republican, you'd still have to show no democrats on assistance and no republicans not on assistance.

    Person 1-Then what is the purpose of pointing out Mississippi's voting and assistance rates?

    Person 2-Its lazy statistics used to satiate dullards and give them talking points that don't really say anything.

    Person 1- So you're saying to truly understand what's happening I need to look at the actual voting patterns of individuals who are on assistance?

    Person 2-Isnt that what I've been telling you for three days?

    -- Posted by quietmike on Sat, Nov 25, 2017, at 5:18 PM
  • RV, do you have any (preferably legitimate) statistics showing how people who get assistance from the taxpayer vote? I had to throw in "legitimate" because, as you well know, there are lies, d*mn lies, and statistics.

    -- Posted by fair share on Sat, Nov 25, 2017, at 6:09 PM
  • Possibly the most inane internet dispute I have ever seen. Neither of you has enough data to actually support your argument. This is like the apocryphal tale of the blind men and the elephant. QM swears the elephant is like a snake, because he has touched the trunk. And RV swears it is like a broom, because he has touched its tail. Which would not be all that funny, if each were not calling the other a fool.

    -- Posted by lazarus on Mon, Nov 27, 2017, at 7:35 AM
  • One has posted 4 links showing how individuals on assistance actually vote.

    The other assumes that since citizens in a state vote a certain way and that state has high rates of assistance use, then that people of that party use assistance more.

    A few problem with making that assumption.

    Problem 1-Far less than half of citizens of any state usually vote in any election.

    Problem 2-There is no state where the majority of people use assistance.

    Problem 3- A vote could easily be split 51-49 with higher rates of assistance use among the 49.

    Problem 4- People with higher incomes have higher rates of actually voting.

    Problem 5- People with felony records, or otherwise legally barred from voting, also have higher rates of poverty, as many well paying jobs are unavailable to them.

    Nevermind that Lazarus actually quoted the stats in one provided link, showing those on the dole do vote democrat in higher numbers, but he tried a ham-fisted spin and argued against the strawman he'd created.

    -- Posted by quietmike on Mon, Nov 27, 2017, at 8:34 AM
  • Trump can't even perform a basic duty as president.Today he stood in front of a portrait of Andrew Jackson( the architecture of Trail of Tears) and insulted brave Native American war heros and Native Americans.He uses the name Pocahontas as if it is a dirty word and something to be ashamed of.I am sure he never read her history since he doesn't read.Whether Elizabeth Warren has indian blood or not so what.He has passed no legislation but has time to be petty.

    Now he is trying to convince America that his vulgar Hollywood tape is fake after he did a rare thing by apologizing for what he said on it.

    What about old Flynn,now he has a choice to throw his own son under the bus or Trump.Americans will get a chance to say Flynn's favorite chant"Lock him up"and his son.So looks like Trump had a possible spy as National Security Advisor.

    -- Posted by lets be real on Mon, Nov 27, 2017, at 11:51 PM
  • Yeah Trump pointing out how Elizabeth Warren lied about being part native American in order to claim minority status to land a job, is much more offensive than Warren actually doing it.

    -- Posted by quietmike on Tue, Nov 28, 2017, at 5:47 AM
  • BTW Time magazine CALLED and asked me to be the Person of the Year,but I refused.LOL.It has not been proven that Warren gained anything because she has native American heritage.Trump does not know about others heritage.

    -- Posted by lets be real on Tue, Nov 28, 2017, at 9:47 AM
  • It was no accident that he stood in front of the Native American exterminator yesterday,cruel.

    -- Posted by lets be real on Tue, Nov 28, 2017, at 10:32 AM
  • https://indiancountrymedianetwork.com/news/elizabeth-warrens-genealogical-challe...

    I guess white privilege and cultural appropriation doesn't count for leftys.

    -- Posted by quietmike on Tue, Nov 28, 2017, at 12:16 PM
  • It has not been proven...-posted by lets be real

    Almost missed this bit, which is laugable coming from someone who's been foaming at the mouth over Roy Moore allegations.

    -- Posted by quietmike on Tue, Nov 28, 2017, at 12:19 PM
  • What about that woman republicans sent to the Washington Post with a fake story about Moore? Well it backfired because the Post's editors were too experienced and did not fall for it.Now the joke is on her employer and they have a pretty good idea who it is.Some of the waitresses who worked in the Olde Hickory House have come forth after Moore's lawyer stated that Moore NEVER went there.These people are Trump supporters.They along with others in Ala states he was a regular there,at least 4-5 times a week.All except for one loyal Moore supporter who says he never came there and can't remember working with any of the other regular workers.LOL.

    -- Posted by lets be real on Tue, Nov 28, 2017, at 8:01 PM
  • How can Trump blame Democrats because the republican majority in both houses can't pass any bills.His lie he tweeted today about Pelosi and Schumer's meeting backfired. His stunt made him look like a fool sitting between 2 empty chairs trying to convince the American people that the Democrats have control.Glad they did not stand for his verbal abuse.Republicans have complained about the deficit for years now they are willing to raise it to stick it to the poor to give tax cuts to the rich.Americans will remember in 2018.

    -- Posted by lets be real on Tue, Nov 28, 2017, at 9:30 PM
  • Yeah its terrible to think the half of Americans who pay no taxes will have to bear the burden of the other half, who aren't paying their fair share.

    -- Posted by quietmike on Wed, Nov 29, 2017, at 2:55 AM
  • Unreal, do you have any idea why some Americans want tax cuts? The givers know they have to set limits because the takers never will.

    -- Posted by fair share on Wed, Nov 29, 2017, at 3:58 AM
  • People making under $10,000 will have higher taxes while millionaires will pay less taxes.Trump is lying when he says "This will hurt him bad".Him and his family will save over a billion dollars in inheritance taxes alone.Hell will freeze over before money trickles down to workers from big company tax breaks.Mike and fair evidently feel it is okay for people at poverty level to pay higher taxes.

    Trump caused outrage and sparked fears of violence against Americans at home and abroad by retweeting anti-muslim fake videos from an extreme far right British hate group.He should be ashamed of himself.David Duke really loved it. We have problems with North Korea and he is foolishly tweeting.Within the last 2 weeks he has offended the blacks,native americans,muslims and now asians.

    Had a good laugh when Trump said today in a speech "I told you we would be saying Merry Christmas again" meaning Obama never said it.News stations showed clips of Obama wishing America a Merry Christmas some with his wife no less than 15 different times.

    -- Posted by lets be real on Wed, Nov 29, 2017, at 8:18 PM
  • People making under $10,000 will have higher taxes while millionaires will pay less taxes.-posted by lets be real

    People who make less than 10,000 currently pay no income taxes, so having them pay one cent is a 100% increase.

    Millionaires (and billionaires) pay the majority of all taxes, so any tax cut will disproportionately affect them.

    Mike (and maybe Fair) think that everyone derives some benefit from government, so everyone should pay.

    One native American was asked about Trump's pocahontas remark and he replied that the marines made him yell Geronimo when he jumped out of a plane, and he didn't find that offensive either.

    -- Posted by quietmike on Wed, Nov 29, 2017, at 8:34 PM
  • "Mike (and maybe Fair) think that everyone derives some benefit from government, so everyone should pay."

    Agreed. Just like some pay a disproportionate share, some receive a disproportionate share. But everyone should have some skin in the game.

    "Mike and fair evidently feel it is okay for people at poverty level to pay higher taxes."

    I bet it would result in a much more thoughtful approach to voting by many. And if they don't want to pay cash, I would be ok with them turning over a certain percentage of their cigarettes, or beer, or drugs. Or they could pay with their time doing something to benefit others.

    "Hell will freeze over before money trickles down to workers from big company tax breaks."

    Even IF true, which it isn't, it would still create a lot of jobs and make us more competitive with other countries. But it is hard to break the multigenerational ingrained habit of intentionally knee-capping yourself, isn't it?

    -- Posted by fair share on Thu, Nov 30, 2017, at 12:39 AM
  • Well, I am left to wonder what turn things must have taken with the discussion of this ongoing bloodbath of women's accusations against men. I hate that the whole discussion got deleted, rather than just whatever the offending comments were, because I have so many questions. Of course, the people on here probably don't have the answers, but here are some questions that come to my mind...

    Why are we throwing out such a wide net? In my mind there are fundamental differences between: 1) Being forced into sexual favors as a condition of employment 2)Being propositioned 3) Being touched in inappropriate places 4) Having some old geezer "pat you on the bottom" 5) Having someone make vulgar or crude remarks in your presence. Somehow all these things are being thrown into the same category. In my mind it is obvious that 1 and 3 are unacceptable, and the perpetrator should be punished. 2 and 4, it should suffice to say; "No, thank you," "Hell, NO," or "I don't like that." And 5 you could just act like you did not hear it unless it persisted to the point of telling the perpetrator to; "Stop being a jerk."

    Why don't we mention (and it does happen) the particular issues of being the only man in an office full of women? Just ask someone who has worked in that situation. It is not always a picnic.

    What about office bullying? There is a pretty common situation where a group of women in a workplace will select one woman, and collectively peck her to death or drive her out. It is ugly to watch. And it is the perpetual danger of being the only male in an all female workplace.

    And, lastly, what about women who do not dress "professionally?" I once had a friend at work complain to me that she was not treated as if she had any meaningful contribution to make. I told her, since she was a friend; "you would be taken more seriously if you displayed a lot less cleavage." It was not that she did not have impressive cleavage to display, but that did not direct attention to her ideas. I compared it to when my daughter was a cheerleader. After every game, my wife complained that I was not paying attention to the cheerleader routines. I told her that I really tried, but they kept putting a football game behind her.....Now I wonder if my helpful advice would be considered some sort of harassment?

    -- Posted by lazarus on Fri, Dec 1, 2017, at 8:48 AM
  • Trump"s National Security Advisor just pleaded guilty to lying to the FBI about colluding with Russia and will cooperate with investigation,"lock him up" LOL.Will the WH say this good ole boy only carried coffee?This investigation is intensifying with 4 charged and more to go while Trump tweets about what is going on in the NFL.Can't wait for the WH spin on this.This says a lot about Trumps judgement when everyone he hired is dirty and a traitor.There is no way Trump did not know his cabinet and campaign had contact with so far 19 different Russians.If so he is ignorant which is bad.Anyone remember this "I will have good people around me" LOL.

    Still laughing about the near empty park at Trumps tree lighting. Usually there is standing room only,last night there was no one standing or sitting.

    -- Posted by lets be real on Fri, Dec 1, 2017, at 11:48 AM
  • Flynn contacted Russia to influence a UN vote on Israel.

    Stupid to lie about it, but it isn't the big "gotcha" that idiots like Joy Behar and Maxine Waters are making it out to be.

    Every major campaign probably contacted the Russians and other internationally significant countries. Backchannel communications prevented a nuclear war during the Cuban missile crisis. This is nothing new.

    -- Posted by quietmike on Fri, Dec 1, 2017, at 12:30 PM
  • Laz, the wide net is because that is what the women want. Ever wonder why the word "hysteria" and the word "hysterectomy" have the same root? I have. And it is exactly what most people would think.

    Unreal, you must be too excited to sleep!!! Yet another day foretelling the demise of the Trump presidency. How disappointed you must be each and every morning when you awake to the reality that he is still president. I've got a neat little exercise you could try to help you remember he is still your president.

    1) Grab a stack of $20s

    2) Turn them over so the back side is up

    3) Get your Sharpie, bright colors preferred

    4) Boldly write "Donald Trump Lives Here" just above the White House

    5) Look at it and contemplate the meaning when out and about spending your money

    I hope that was helpful.

    -- Posted by fair share on Fri, Dec 1, 2017, at 4:37 PM
  • Fair if Flynn keeps singing you can take your $20's and write,Danny doesn't live here anymore on them by Christmas.Why would a president hire someone in charge of security after being warned not to by outgoing president.Trump knew this man was being investigated for taking money from foreign agencies.I bet he wishes he listened to Obama this time.Distancing themselves from Flynn and blaming Obama will not work.

    No other president in the first year of office had this many cabinet members indicted and more to go.I wonder if Trump supporters still think these indictments are fake news.

    -- Posted by lets be real on Fri, Dec 1, 2017, at 9:24 PM
  • Guess I was a little too late with the sleeping advice. Probably won't be able to sleep tonight due to being sooo depressed about the Senate passing tax reform/relief. You'll likely lay awake all night worrying about all the money that will be taken from those that didn't earn it just so it can be given to the billionaires to make sure they always have something to light their cigars with. Of course, if you could just understand reality a little bit (don't worry about trying to understand all of it) you would sleep like a baby since you would realize we are now further down the road to prosperity for all. At least for all that choose to partake in the ride.

    -- Posted by fair share on Sat, Dec 2, 2017, at 10:47 AM
  • Not too long ago JFK wanted to cut taxes to spur the economy. He did, and it did.

    Today, JFK would be disavowed by the DNC as a neocon heretic.

    Ask not what your country can do for you????

    Whatcho talking bout Willis?

    It shows how far down the socialist rabbit hole dems have gone.

    -- Posted by quietmike on Sat, Dec 2, 2017, at 11:51 AM
  • If only the Wh*remonger-in-Chief had picked a different VP, we could have been in a much better place. Might not even have needed Trump to right the ship. Something for the Dems to think about.

    -- Posted by fair share on Sat, Dec 2, 2017, at 12:24 PM
  • Have to give Trump credit calling the troops today to brag about "How he was letting them do their job".He also bragged about the good economy he was handed and his tax reform that will never pass.

    -- Posted by lets be real on Thu, Nov 23, 2017, at 12:14 PM

    Tax reform that will never pass.

    Hmm.

    -- Posted by quietmike on Sat, Dec 2, 2017, at 5:43 PM
  • Tax reform has not passed yet,now the 2 chambers will have to iron out their differences in a version that can pass both chambers.

    Trump tweeted today that he fired Flynn because he lied to Pence and the FBI.Then why did he let him continue to be in that job for another month? In Trump's interview with Lester Holt he never mentioned the FBI.I am anxious to see if Trump throws Jared Kushner under the bus because he is next and then guess who after that.

    -- Posted by lets be real on Sat, Dec 2, 2017, at 8:06 PM
  • Democrats still cannot show where a single vote was changed.

    The issue, of course, is the left's pre-chosen conclusion that, in order to have beaten the Hildebeast in the election, Trump MUST have committed some offense - how else could he have pulled it off? With such a presumption, it of course seems logical to search for the offense until it is found, and baring that, to create one. And the Russians provided the perfect straw man.

    Here's the problem: when people are "certain" of something - particularly "all" of our "intelligence agencies" - it begs the question as to why it appears to be so difficult to come up with a simple elucidation of it. We hear the words "collusion" and "interference" quite a bit....except that "collusion" is not a US statutory crime (except for anti-trust law); so that's not very helpful; and we still have no idea what "interference" occurred. In the majority of the English-speaking world, "interference" implies some kind of action BLOCKING a desired goal; but information can't actually block....it can only persuade, which remains under the will and control of the person being persuaded.

    So here's our conundrum: when - if at all - this information came out, what got "blocked"? Was it really the freewill of the folks who were all set to vote for Clinton until they were "shocked" by the "revelation" that she was a corrupt, toxic slag?

    Or....did this information actually UNBLOCK attempts to hide the fact that Clinton was a corrupt, toxic slag? And if it did, could one reasonably conclude that the only "interference" that occurred during the 2016 election was done by the "collusion" of the mainstream press with leftist/globalist power brokers who did not want the US electorate having the full information about their candidates, information to which the US electorate was entitled?

    -- Posted by quietmike on Sun, Dec 3, 2017, at 2:32 AM
  • Option number two is the correct one. Putin must have an awful sore stomach from all the laughing he's been doing the past year. Doesn't make any difference to him who our President is, he hates us just the same. Doesn't matter how much they may have helped him gain control of nuclear material in years past. Sure, they interfered in the election. But not truly trying to get one elected over the other. But to plant seeds of doubt in the public to undermine whatever administration came into power. And we are playing right into his hands, giving him exactly what he wants. But no matter how hard the dums try to prevent Trump from making America great again, they will be disappointed.

    -- Posted by fair share on Sun, Dec 3, 2017, at 7:32 AM
  • The Make America Great Again people are the reincarnation of the Ghost Dancers of the 1880's. And we know who ultimately suffered for the delusions of the Ghost Dancers.

    The one real benefit of Trump's election is that it brought home to the rest of the free world the high price of falling for the Russian propaganda. Trump style candidates have been resoundingly defeated in subsequent elections, They still have some traction in a couple of the semi-third world countries like Poland, but educated people are no longer falling for that nonsense. Britain is beginning to realize the effects of the Brexit vote, which will probably be rescinded well before full implementation. Nothing like a drop in the standard of living to get people's attention.

    But, for America it has been an unmitigated disaster. We have successfully abdicated our position as leader of the free world. The EU, led by Germany now represents the modern world. Russia and Iran are now the significant powers in the Middle East. China has joyfully filled the vacancy we left as the dominant economic power in the Pacific. And every third rate world leader is standing in line to exchange flattery for real concessions from the crown prince of inferiority complexes, while his short attention span jumps from issuing hollow threats against North Korea to indulging in twitter wars with such significant characters as Lavar Ball (at least there he was engaging an intellectual peer.)

    Remarkably, his fans (not supporters, this is a reality show, not a political movement)doggedly cling to the belief that everything is going great. Truth is, the clock is running down. It is already established that Trump colluded with the Russian, since Donald Jr (not the sharpest knife in the drawer) volunteered that information without being asked. And now we have Donald proving that the apple does not fall far from the tree, by indirectly volunteering that he obstructed justice. Again, none of these conclusions rely on what anyone says about the Trump administration. They hang themselves with their own words. I have seen smarter defendants on Judge Judy. The funny thing is, Trump is dumb enough that I would have believed him if he had only said he misspoke. It was the cockamamie story that his lawyer made that tweet for him that clinched it. To begin with, I don't think he would hire a lawyer that dumb. And is anyone seriously expected to believe he asked someone else to hop on twitter and make a bunch of bat-sxxx crazy twitters for him? How does that happen, was he just not feeling kooky that morning? However, he has probably changed his story by now. One thing Trump fans can do is accept any number of new, if contradictory, defenses. ("That was just locker room talk, and I did not really do those things" has morphed to "that was a fake tape") It is only fitting that Trump throw his support behind Roy Moore. I mean, he might be the only person with a more Judge Judy defense than Trump; "I did not do it... besides, they cannot prove it... and their mothers approved anyway." It will be interesting to see the outcome of that election. Just how far down the rabbit hole will Trump fans follow?

    The sad thing is, ya'll did not even get the magic shirts that protect you from bullets. All you have are those silly hats to ward off facts.... I have to admit, the hats seem to be working better than the magic shirts.

    -- Posted by lazarus on Mon, Dec 4, 2017, at 9:09 PM
  • I guess its to be expected that supporters of democrat ideology are ill equipped to make a fact based argument when their ideology is based on emotions, not facts.

    Under Trump we've had two out of three quarters with 3% growth, even with massive economic damage from hurricanes.

    The stock market has had over 80 daily record highs since the election.

    The Nasdaq is up 30% since the election.

    Consumer spending is up.

    Business investment is up.

    2 million fewer people on food stamps under Trump.

    But dems would rather have someone lie to them with a sweet voice than tell them painful truths.

    -- Posted by quietmike on Tue, Dec 5, 2017, at 4:07 AM
  • As for the absurd claim by our in house liberals that collusion with the Russians has been proven, you might do well to listen to liberal Harvard attorney Alan Dershowitz who says the Flynn indictment, proves exactly the opposite, that Mueller has nothing and by indicting Flynn for lying, his star witness has no credibility.

    http://thehill.com/opinion/white-house/362948-why-did-flynn-lie-and-why-did-muel...

    -- Posted by quietmike on Tue, Dec 5, 2017, at 4:29 AM
  • Well, whether the economy is booming (which appears to be the case if you look with an objective eye) or ready to go into free-fall (which can only be seen if you are wearing your never-Trump glasses), at least we are safer now that only 2 of the airhead Supremes voted for terrorists over us. So at least we now can pursue safety with common sense. And it is looking moore and moore like the Dems aren't going to pick up a freebie in Alabama. I understand how hard it can be for some people trying to process and correlate the way things really are with the way they want them to be. For too many they seem to be be like the petulant toddler sitting in the floor in his dirty diaper kicking and screaming and fighting attempts by the adult in the room to clean him up and change the diaper. Anyone know what the baby is thinking in that situation? "I know it is wet and stinky, but it is warm and it is mine!"

    -- Posted by fair share on Tue, Dec 5, 2017, at 6:16 AM
  • Ah yes, the economy, which continues in the direction it was already headed. The stock market, which booms in anticipation of corporations having free reign. And us on the cusp of the greatest redistribution of wealth the nation has ever seen... out of your pockets and into those of the corporations. And best of all; we are "safer." Although we continue to die by violence at a rate many times that of people who live in countries without travel bans, and at a rate utterly unchanged. Who are we "safer" than? But you have all the answers. Call anyone who questions your fantasies a "liberal."

    -- Posted by lazarus on Tue, Dec 5, 2017, at 9:21 AM
  • Laz, you say "the greatest redistribution of wealth the nation has ever seen". In a way, letting people keep more of their own money IS a redistribution, at least from the way it has been going. But that is only because it has been chronically redistributed from those that make it to those that don't. What part of not letting people keep their own money is not liberal?

    -- Posted by fair share on Tue, Dec 5, 2017, at 9:56 AM
  • I call whiny losers who think they are entitled to force others to work for their benefit, liberals.

    Also those who absolutely suck at logic. How is letting people keep their own money a "redistribution"?

    Laz, since it appears you've stopped your half hearted attempts of denying your liberalism, maybe you can answer that one?

    -- Posted by quietmike on Tue, Dec 5, 2017, at 11:10 AM
  • Once again, for those slow thinking liberals, our violent death rate is because of democrats. Subtract the crime rate of democrat run cities, and our crime rate is astonishingly low.

    -- Posted by quietmike on Tue, Dec 5, 2017, at 11:25 AM
  • Well it is official Roy Moore,a child molester,is now the face of the conservative so called Christian family values party.Democrats accused of sexual misconduct are asked to step down while republicans accused are being welcomed to congress with open arms by republicans and a president with over a dozen accusers.It is a sad day in America when these powerful men are telling women and their daughters that it is okay and normal to abuse them.

    One of Moore's accusers stated yesterday when she heard him lie about not knowing any of these women she had to speak up.Debbie Gibson says she dated him for 2-3 months when she was 17 and has evidence of him writing on a graduation card in her memory book in high school.She even has a notation wrote of when they went out the first time and where they went in the book. I am not a hand writing expert but the signature look a lot like the one in Beverly Nelson's yearbook.

    McConnell's answer to all this is let the people of Ala decide,then that has to go for all accused not just republicans.For some bloggers the answer to this will be continue bashing Hillary,Bill and Obama none of which is in office.

    Republicans now own Roy Moore.Even pastors like Franklin Graham are now praising the gospel of Trump and Moore instead of Jesus Christ.Conservative so called Christians are now putting their party before their morals and faith.To them everything that was wrong is now good.

    -- Posted by lets be real on Tue, Dec 5, 2017, at 12:34 PM
  • You are probably confusing the terms liberal and math. Easy to see how that can happen.

    It is really quite simple. We are going to cut revenues from the wealthy and corporations. Moneys which they will happily stash, as no one becomes wealthy by throwing money away. I suppose we can at least for a while ignore the additional growth of the deficit (forgive me if I cannot readily distinguish between Republican deficit and Democrat deficit), but, eventually, someone has to pay. Hmmm. We aren't going to take it from the oppressed wealthy. And the poor have nothing to take. Who does that leave.... oh yes; us! What remains of the middle class will have to pay.

    Here is what I came to understand about government. Taxes are meaningless. Current taxes are the result of mistakes made in the past. Anyone can cut taxes, but the results are always the same. Eventually taxes have to go up even more to pay for the shortfall. If you want to make a basic change, spending is the only thing to cut. Taxes are not the action, they are the equal and opposite reaction imposed on us by the laws of physics. Unfortunately, elected officials stay in office by making people happy. No matter how temporary the happy might be. The government makes half the people happy by spending more, and half the people happy by taking in less. But, ultimately, someone has to pay. And when that time comes, we will curse the people who have to collect the money that was spent by people who got praised for it. Republicans spend the money differently, but they do not spend it less. If you believe that is liberal thinking, so be it.

    -- Posted by lazarus on Tue, Dec 5, 2017, at 1:21 PM
  • Laz, have you ever got a job from a poor person? Or been poor but provided jobs for others?

    -- Posted by fair share on Tue, Dec 5, 2017, at 3:16 PM
  • As for cutting spending, you are correct, and that needs to happen as well. Who cut welfare in the 90s? Who vetoed those cuts twice and forced a government shutdown during Christmas in 95?

    Did JFKs tax cuts spur the economy and lead to more revenue being collected? Yes

    Did Reagan's tax cuts spur the economy and lead to an increase in tax revenue? Yes

    -- Posted by quietmike on Tue, Dec 5, 2017, at 5:46 PM
  • Since Trump will not show his taxes,now Mueller is going after Trump and family's bank records with Deutsche Bank.This is the only bank who would loan Trump money and has been charged with laundering billions from Russia.Trump's son said during the campaign "We have plenty of money coming in from Russia".Keep following the money Mueller.

    -- Posted by lets be real on Tue, Dec 5, 2017, at 7:25 PM
  • Subtract the crime rate of democrat run cities, and our crime rate is astonishingly low.

    -- Posted by quietmike on Tue, Dec 5, 2017, at 11:25 AMReport comment

    Hey Mike, Cities don't commit crimes, individuals do.

    See how that works? 😄

    -- Posted by RocketValentine on Wed, Dec 6, 2017, at 5:26 AM
  • Is that because they are better able to due to policies, or due to association of like-minded individuals and politicians, or because of how/what they are taught?

    -- Posted by fair share on Wed, Dec 6, 2017, at 5:53 AM
  • Thanks for taking the bait catfish, er.... RV

    Most ex felons, who are allowed to vote after release, register as democrats.

    http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/0002716213502931

    -- Posted by quietmike on Wed, Dec 6, 2017, at 6:54 AM
  • So what's to say that they weren't Republicans when they actually committed the crimes, and now that they've served their time and are responsible citizens they registered Democrat?

    And your link about notification laws failed to show any evidence of your statistic that you evidently pulled out of your as$ again.

    Nice try.

    -- Posted by RocketValentine on Wed, Dec 6, 2017, at 7:50 AM
  • Whether they start out as Republicans or not, it is sad that prison teaches people to be Democrats.

    -- Posted by fair share on Wed, Dec 6, 2017, at 9:18 AM
  • RV,

    Did you actually download and read the article, or just look at the overview?

    Responsible citizens, democrats?

    I've asked you for years now to name a democrat platform thst isn't predicated on avoiding responsibility, you have never even ATTEMPTED to give an answer.

    -- Posted by quietmike on Wed, Dec 6, 2017, at 9:57 AM
  • Same false narrative, QM. Everyone has inner cities, gangs, and all the other problems that come with inner cities....we are not the only nation with poor people. And, to save you the trouble, no; our poor people are not fundamentally different than those elsewhere on earth. When you have an argument with legs, let me know.

    -- Posted by lazarus on Wed, Dec 6, 2017, at 10:28 AM
  • When you have anything but your incessant liberal sniveling and whining let me know.

    -- Posted by quietmike on Wed, Dec 6, 2017, at 10:44 AM
  • But leave it to reliable Laz to try a spin instead of addressing the point.

    No one said other countries didn't have poor inner city slums.

    The point was that the majority of American murders happen in our inner cities which are almost universally run by democrats.

    If your (very labored) point is that the majority of crime in European cities happen in inner cities, I'd have no argument with that.

    Then the question becomes who is trying to fix the inner cities? Certainly not democrats, as their only history is turning former economic strongholds into crime ridden watelands, such as Detroit, Philadelphia, Baltimore, etc.

    -- Posted by quietmike on Wed, Dec 6, 2017, at 11:05 AM
  • Whether they start out as Republicans or not, it is sad that prison teaches people to be Democrats.

    -- Posted by fair share on Wed, Dec 6, 2017, at 9:18 AMReport comment

    Fair, that's called Rehabilitation. 👍

    -- Posted by RocketValentine on Wed, Dec 6, 2017, at 11:07 AM
  • Sitting around, idle all day as your life's necessities are provided to you by someone else teaches you to be a democrat...

    I can go along with that.

    Thanks RV!

    -- Posted by quietmike on Wed, Dec 6, 2017, at 11:28 AM
  • Since Trump and his whole cabinet will be felons and may go to jail they wont be able to vote at all.

    The republican party is destroying itself.Steve Bannon said Romney hid behind religion to avoid Vietnam,does he think fake bone spurs is a better excuse.What better person to boost Roy Moore,someone who abused his wife so bad she afraid to show up in court.Those good ole family values now include abusing women and molesting children.Even the anti-abortionist really are pro-birth but anti-life.In other words cut off poor kids healthcare and food source and label them as moochers and let them die.

    Trump sure is "making america great again" soon for the first time we will have a president banned from countries abroad.He is unstabilizing the world and has no knowledge of history.

    -- Posted by lets be real on Wed, Dec 6, 2017, at 12:04 PM
  • Trump sure is "making america great again" soon for the first time we will have a president banned from countries abroad.-posted by lets be real

    I guess you forgot about obama and Chechnya?

    -- Posted by quietmike on Wed, Dec 6, 2017, at 12:20 PM
  • I thought it wad Kenya.

    -- Posted by fair share on Wed, Dec 6, 2017, at 12:54 PM
  • RV, at least they ate learning something. 👍

    -- Posted by fair share on Wed, Dec 6, 2017, at 12:55 PM
  • Unreal, I guess Jesus would rather have us kill them up front rather than letting them have a chance at life? I have been unable to find that in the KJV. Would you happen to have a book, chapter, verse reference?

    -- Posted by fair share on Wed, Dec 6, 2017, at 1:00 PM
  • Mikey, Prison education programs are provided through partnerships with local colleges and universities.

    There are also courses taught by inmate-instructors for trades, basic studies, religious programs, and helping some to move away from gang related subcultures.

    Basic education is one sure way to make a Democrat out of someone.

    That's why voting patterns around cities with large universities tend to be overwhelmingly Democratic.

    While poor, rural, uneducated communities vote republican.

    -- Posted by RocketValentine on Wed, Dec 6, 2017, at 1:39 PM
  • RV

    Three quarters of released prisoners will be re-arrested within five years. Further giving credence to your theory that prison makes people democrats.

    It's laughable that, on one hand, you claim more educated people vote democrat, yet in the other, requiring people to get a state ID to vote will hurt democrats.

    How smart do you have to be to go to the DMV?

    -- Posted by quietmike on Wed, Dec 6, 2017, at 1:57 PM
  • More info for you to ignore.. by that well known neocon group NPR.

    https://www.npr.org/sections/money/2012/09/26/161841771/how-income-divides-democ...

    -- Posted by quietmike on Wed, Dec 6, 2017, at 2:21 PM
  • Mikey, I didn't float the theory that "prison makes people Democrats".

    That was fair share.

    I only pointed out the fact that your data doesn't show the political affiliation of the criminals when the crimes were committed.

    I also never made one mention of voter ID laws.

    You need to loosen up the strap on your goofy little red MAGA hat.

    It seems to be cutting of some circulation to your brain.

    -- Posted by RocketValentine on Wed, Dec 6, 2017, at 2:29 PM
  • Rv,

    No?

    So what's to say that they weren't Republicans when they actually committed the crimes, and now that they've served their time and are responsible citizens they registered Democrat?

    Fair, that's called Rehabilitation. 👍

    As for my link,

    I asked if you downloaded the actual study, which does show most criminals are democrats, or whether you just read the overview.

    In true fashion, just as with the numerous times I've asked you to name a democrat policy that isn't about avoiding responsibility, you had no answer.

    -- Posted by quietmike on Wed, Dec 6, 2017, at 3:13 PM
  • Corriene Brown gets to go to prison for skimming money from fake charities ostensibly meant for poor kids.

    I guess she didn't know you had to be a more prominent democrat, and a presidential candidate to get away with fake charities.

    -- Posted by quietmike on Wed, Dec 6, 2017, at 6:16 PM
  • Quite have to be referring to Trump as a presidential candidate getting away with fake charities.

    Joke of the week,Trump jr refused to answer questions about his conversation with daddy because of Att/Client privilege.Who is the attorney and who was the client.LOL

    -- Posted by lets be real on Wed, Dec 6, 2017, at 9:12 PM
  • Forgot how slow on the uptake you were lbr, maybe you missed the more prominent democrat part?

    -- Posted by quietmike on Wed, Dec 6, 2017, at 9:19 PM
  • Mikey, I would think that after the Republican Party has now become the party of Donald Trump and Roy Moore, you'd give up on the stale and ridiculous talking point of Republicans being the party of "personal responsibility".

    That's now about as hilarious as trying to claim being the party of "family values".

    I can names many "platforms" where Democrats take personal responsibility and Republicans avoid them.

    One is the environment. Democrats/Liberals take responsibility for damages of man-made pollution and try to be good stewards of the earth by protecting our environment.

    While Republicans deregulate pollution control and even claim that climate change is nothing but a hoax.

    Democrats want to take personal responsibility to end as many mass shootings as possible by passing some common sense gun control laws.

    Republicans want no part of it. In fact, their only answer is "more guns".

    If Republicans really want to be seen as the party of personal responsibility, they're going to have to admit to themselves that they've put a unqualified, mentally unstable, complete idiot in the Oval Office.

    Sometimes you just gotta bite the bullet.

    -- Posted by RocketValentine on Wed, Dec 6, 2017, at 10:20 PM
  • Environment and guns. Hmm.

    In both cases democrats want to turn over power to the government.

    You're so far gone you don't even have any idea what PERSONAL responsibility means, do you?

    -- Posted by quietmike on Thu, Dec 7, 2017, at 1:53 AM
  • And your idea of personal responsibility in those cases is turning power over big corporations and gun lobbyists.

    If you believe taking actions to restrain damages that we, as humans, do to our environment, or doing all we can to prevent violent deaths in our communities isn't taking "personal responsibility", then you are the one that has no idea of the meaning of the term.

    -- Posted by RocketValentine on Thu, Dec 7, 2017, at 5:41 AM
  • I gave you a hint earlier, that, unsurprisingly, went right over your head. Why do you think PERSONAL was in all caps?

    Since I know you're intellectually handicapped by your liberalism, I'll make it extra easy for you. But given your past inability to click and follow a link, who knows?

    https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/personal

    -- Posted by quietmike on Thu, Dec 7, 2017, at 7:32 AM
  • Mikey, I realize that the ability to add a link to your blog post must feel like a proud personal achievement in your life.

    Unfortunately, your incomprehension and ignorance subjugate this joyful event.

    I'm guessing you were home-schooled?

    Anyway...taking care of the air that you breathe, the water you drink, keeping yourself and your family safe from violent gun related deaths.

    There are no better examples of "PERSONAL responsibility".

    ^^(Did you see that? I capitalized it too! Impressive...right?)

    Evidently you didn't take my advice and loosen the strap on your goofy red MAGA hat. Seems like you must have accidentally tightened it up a couple notches instead.

    -- Posted by RocketValentine on Thu, Dec 7, 2017, at 10:08 AM
  • I know being an idiotic liberal presents its challenges for you, but try to follow along.

    Personal means something you do yourself. NOT something you pawn off on someone else, including a government entity.

    Your examples are a perfect illustration, not only of your ignorance of basic vocabulary, but of democrats complete alienation of personal responsibility.

    -- Posted by quietmike on Thu, Dec 7, 2017, at 10:23 AM
  • Any person that wants to is free to personally not pollute, or even clean up, their own area of the environment (ir)regardless of whether or not you try to make the government do it for you. Likewise, (ir)regardless of what the guvment does about guns, everyone is free to NOT exercise their A2 rights. People are allowed to be do-gooders all of their own volition. Some people get that idea, some don't.

    On a different track, it looks like America finally took a look at a map and found out where Israel's capitol is. Wonder why we didn't think to do that 70 years ago?

    -- Posted by fair share on Thu, Dec 7, 2017, at 1:51 PM
  • I agree, fair share. The measures you take personally to make our environment a safer place for future generations is taking "personal responsibility" for the environment.

    And that's just one platform that leans heavily Democrat.

    Now it's fair to say that I can't personally, on my own, save the earth from pollution or climate change.

    But if each individual also takes the same personal responsibility, it can happen.

    It's kinda like when you take the personal responsibility to eat or feed your family.

    You go to Kroger and buy food.

    You yourself didn't raise and kill the cow, package the meat, can the vegetables, etc.

    Then it all has been inspected by one of those evil "government entities" like the USDA.

    I guess that means you're pawning your personal eating responsibility off on someone else.

    I better never see you at Kroger.

    -- Posted by RocketValentine on Thu, Dec 7, 2017, at 2:07 PM
  • Fair,

    It's amazing how some people understand what personal in personal responsibility means and some don't.

    Makes you wonder about personal hygiene.

    -- Posted by quietmike on Thu, Dec 7, 2017, at 3:06 PM
  • Other things quietmike is amazed and baffled about.....

    Facts

    Science

    Definitions

    Ice cubes

    Math

    Shoelaces

    -- Posted by RocketValentine on Thu, Dec 7, 2017, at 4:09 PM
  • Nah those are pretty easy, and I thought the meaning of personal was too, but even after linking a definition, "some" are just too dense to get it.

    -- Posted by quietmike on Thu, Dec 7, 2017, at 4:48 PM
  • There is an ugly,racist,homophobic and hateful wave manifesting itself in the US and calling itself evangelical christianity.They are hiding behind the bible and have no concern for the poor,saving souls,the homeless,hunger or about the lives of anyone that doesn't look like them.They push to have a sexually immoral person in the white house and a child molester in the senate,if he is a republican. Nothing is off limit when it comes to getting their candidate elected,party first then country.

    Trump's decision yesterday was done without regard to how many people in the middle east might die.America is gaining nothing from this.Unrest is what you get when an ignorant president sends an ignorant non-experienced son-in-law to the middle east and snubs your own Sec of State.

    The Mueller investigation is getting to close to Trump so all the republicans have left is to discredit Mueller.They know trump supporters will call everything fake news even if Trump himself says ,yes I colluded with Russia.Their answer will be well if he did it is not illegal,or the Clintons and Obama did it or he was joking or we did not just hear him say that.

    -- Posted by lets be real on Thu, Dec 7, 2017, at 7:45 PM
  • After Trump's slurred speech yesterday the white house stated he will get a physical at Walter Reed like past presidents and results will be made public.But we all know he will go to that same quack as before who gave false readings in laymen's terms who will hide his weight.It may have something to do with over indulgence at Mikey D's.He is one of the third fattest presidents so far.This is relevant because he made such a big deal whenever Hillary sneezed during the campaign.

    -- Posted by lets be real on Thu, Dec 7, 2017, at 11:52 PM
  • Quietmike,

    You may be on to something. 👃🐖

    Or maybe they just eat a lot of beans and broccoli.

    -- Posted by fair share on Fri, Dec 8, 2017, at 1:44 AM
  • The conundrum of LBR, and democrats in general:

    1.Islam is a religion of peace.

    2.Trump shouldn't have recognized Jerusalem, as it will inflame muslims

    You can't even make up that level of stupidity.

    -- Posted by quietmike on Fri, Dec 8, 2017, at 3:28 AM
  • A conundrum of the religious right and republicans in general:

    1. The Republican Party is the party of Christian and family values.

    2. They fully support Donald Trump and Roy Moore.

    As for Trump stirring the pot between Israel and Palestine...

    Nobody except Israel thinks Trumps involvement on the matter is a good idea or helps the peace process.

    Our allies. France, Britain, The E.U., even Jordan, all agree that this is a big move backwards in bringing peace to the region.

    Even thou people on both sides of the conflict are deeply religious, this is a land war. It's all about who controls segments of land in that area.

    We could argue all day over which religion is more peaceful or more violent(and we've done that here many times), but the truth is that people on sides twist their scriptures to fit whatever extreme beliefs they want to portray.

    Can someone tell me what good Trumps involvement there will do?

    What are the consequences if he didn't make this decision to declare Jerusalem the capital and move the embassy?

    Everyone in the region, and our allies abroad, know what happens when he does do this. It will inflame the conflict and people will die.

    I guess Trump isn't happy just dividing the people here in the USA, he has to throw gas on the fire over there too.

    -- Posted by RocketValentine on Fri, Dec 8, 2017, at 6:25 AM
  • Trump said"I am the only one that matters".Now we have emails showing effort to give Trump and his campaign Wikileaks documents.

    -- Posted by lets be real on Fri, Dec 8, 2017, at 9:42 AM
  • "Can someone tell me what good Trumps involvement there will do?"

    -- Posted by RocketValentine on Fri, Dec 8, 2017, at 6:25 AM

    OK RV, let me splain it to you. For some time now various people and countries have tried to bring peace to the Middle East. Hasn't worked out too well for several centuries now. Being the eternal optimist, I hold out hope that this might be the time. (Being a realist, I know it is highly unlikely.) The only way to have any chance of it working out tho is for everyone to come to the table with a starting point of truth and honesty. If you start somewhere else you won't end up with the hoped for results. Trump didn't pick, choose, or declare Jerusalem the capitol of Israel. He is just stating the truth. Then give em some time and maybe all sides can at least acknowledge reality then sit down for some talking and negotiations. It would do no good to start the process with everyone living in a dream world.

    "Trump said"I am the only one that matters"."

    -- Posted by lets be real on Fri, Dec 8, 2017, at 9:42 AM

    He must be delusional. Wonder if he thinks he is Black?

    -- Posted by fair share on Fri, Dec 8, 2017, at 11:49 AM
  • The other shoe has dropped. The gal wity the "Roy Moore yearbook" is admitting it's a forgery.

    Sorry dems, you got snookered again.

    -- Posted by quietmike on Fri, Dec 8, 2017, at 12:06 PM
  • She added the date next to what he wrote.

    Everything Moore wrote and his signature are still confirmed.

    "Forgery"? "Snookered"?

    Not quite, but probably enough for you to justify supporting a pedophile.

    I heard Moore is holding a campaign rally at the Birmingham Chuck E. Cheese this weekend. You should all take your teen daughters there to meet him and get their yearbooks signed.

    -- Posted by RocketValentine on Fri, Dec 8, 2017, at 1:29 PM
  • Confirmed by who? Allred won't allow it to be examined by independent experts.

    You know anyone carrying around last years yearbook at restaurants now?

    Any of your yearbook signatures include the location of where it was signed?

    -- Posted by quietmike on Fri, Dec 8, 2017, at 5:35 PM
  • What are the consequences if he didn't make this decision to declare Jerusalem the capital and move the embassy?

    ------

    You are aware congress made that decision in 1995?

    -- Posted by quietmike on Fri, Dec 8, 2017, at 5:44 PM
  • Why would the date be mportant for her to add?

    -- Posted by stevemills on Fri, Dec 8, 2017, at 5:55 PM
  • My understanding is Israel declared Jerusalem their capitol in the 1950s.

    Hey quietmike, do you ever chuckle to yourself (like I do) when libs claim to hold the high moral ground? And do you ever ROTFLYAO (like I do) when you think about them saying a woman has every right to do what she wants to with her body while at the same time saying no she can't if it involves a male Republican? And do you nearly bust a gut (like I do) when you envision them being honest and coming right out to say "if he messes around with her he is bad, but if he helped her mom end her as she was just getting started we would give him a medal"?

    -- Posted by fair share on Fri, Dec 8, 2017, at 6:50 PM
  • I do chuckle over most liberal positions, then I remember we're subsidizing such foolishness, then the humor goes away.

    -- Posted by quietmike on Fri, Dec 8, 2017, at 8:01 PM
  • Fair it is you repubs that claim the high moral ground.

    Quite what about the other woman that he dated 3 months when she was in high school and wrote in her memory book?Oh forgive me he did ask her mother first,he claims he does not know her.Moores signatures look the same in both books.Debbie Gibson saw him lie on TV about not knowing any of these women.Republicans endorsing and embracing sexual assault and child molesting has just declared a war on women.

    Trump campaigned for Moore in Florida,why not Alabama?Was he afraid to be seen with Moore for fear he loses.He does not want a photo with Moore that will be very useful for the Democrats.So he is going to the opening of the Civil Rights Museum in Miss for a photo-op tomorrow.This after campaigning for Moore,a racist,who said "America was a better place at a time when slavery was still legal".When asked about this in September he said"I think it was a great time when we were united even though we had slavery,they cared for one another".Slave families were not united,they were separated and sold.Trump is an insult to all the civil rights leaders represented in the museum.John Lewis needs to attend,his sacrifices he made for civil rights are bigger than Trump.

    -- Posted by lets be real on Fri, Dec 8, 2017, at 11:12 PM
  • As long as we are paying for it, we might as well get a laugh or two for compensation.

    Unreal, I'm really starting to wonder if English is your second language. Your comprehension is shaky at best and your retention is even worse. I've told you before that I'm not a Republican. Never have been. Now, if Trump continues to bring the Party around to reasonable thinking, I might join, but it hasn't got to that point yet. So you don't like it that Trump is going to the opening of the Civil Rights Museum? I would hate to hear how loud you would be b*tching if he didn't go. And "what about the other woman that he dated 3 months when she was in high school"? I thought it was her body to do with as she chooses. Who the heck are you to tell her she can't date a guy twice her age? And you claim to be for women's rights? SMH.

    -- Posted by fair share on Sat, Dec 9, 2017, at 12:32 AM
  • Republicans endorsing and embracing sexual assault and child molesting has just declared a war on women.

    --------

    Nothing worse than giving a simpleton a tagline.

    Republicans haven't endorsed and embraced either of those. They've just said it needs to be actually proven, as simple whining from democrats is a bit too common to be taken seriously.

    As for a war on women and civil rights, you only need to look at your own party.

    War is killing people and breaking things. Half of black babies won't survive the womb, thanks to democrats. The sex ratio of male vs female babies has actually changed in recent times thanks to sex-selective abortions, which target female babies.

    LBR, can claim she doesn't support abortion, but is supporting democrats, who want unfettered acces to abortion for any reason, or no reason, any different?

    -- Posted by quietmike on Sat, Dec 9, 2017, at 2:56 AM
  • Trying to force some of the young girls into having sex with him has nothing to do with"her body to do with as she chooses" fair. Would you let him date your teenage daughter? The Democrats asking Franken and Conyers to step down is a bit more than simple whining.Women will remember in 2018 which party welcomed these perverts with open arms.

    Like I said quitemikes answer to every problem in america is pro-birth and anti-life.

    Trump has turned a day of joy to a day of protest in Miss.His rhetoric towards people of color shows he is not going for the right reason,only a photo op. He is talking to a room of mostly whites in a tone showing no compassion reading off paper.Remember this man said KKK are "good people".Now if he goes back to Washington and reauthorizes the voting rights act I will believe he was sincere,action speaks louder than words.Trump has no history of supporting civil rights.He thinks the Central Park 5 cleared of charges should be put to death.He is still challenging the birth certificate of Obama.He was sued for housing discrimination against people of color under Nixon administration.

    -- Posted by lets be real on Sat, Dec 9, 2017, at 11:40 AM
  • When Trump was a democrat, Jesse Jackson gave him an award for his work with minorities. Now, Trump's a racist from way back.

    Dems have said Trump is literally Hitler, yet he recognizes Jerusalem as the capital of Israel.

    You have to wonder what passes for logical thought among liberals.

    -- Posted by quietmike on Sat, Dec 9, 2017, at 11:51 AM
  • Unreal, if you want to have any credibility, you might want to copy/paste and actually quote Trump instead of twisting his words til they are unrecognizable when you "paraphrase". If you can accurately recall, you will remember he said there were good people on both sides. If you do recall that, surely you will remember there were other groups and several independent/unaffiliated individuals on "that" side.

    -- Posted by fair share on Sat, Dec 9, 2017, at 2:27 PM
  • Good people that march along side of white supremacists and Nazis?

    Those same groups came to Shelbyville not long ago.

    Do you think there were "good people" standing on that side of the road with the Klan and the other groups?

    I didn't see any.

    -- Posted by RocketValentine on Sat, Dec 9, 2017, at 5:30 PM
  • Well, RV, it works both ways. Just because the anti-fashionistas were on the other side of the street doesn't mean Everyone there was an anarchist or communist. Tho I'm sure a lot of em were. But I'm just as sure there were some good people there also. As long as you people keep painting conservatives with the broad brush you use, you will keep racism alive and well.

    -- Posted by fair share on Sat, Dec 9, 2017, at 6:26 PM
  • "for some time now various people and countries have tried to bring peace to the Middle East. Hasn't worked out too well for several centuries now."

    Centuries... they are like animals, aren't they. Not like those civilized white people who in just the last century made such contributions to civilization as two world wars, mustard gas, atomic weapons, extermination camps, and ethnic cleansing. Maybe you could offer up a list of places and peoples who have been at peace for "centuries?"

    -- Posted by lazarus on Sat, Dec 9, 2017, at 6:59 PM
  • Seriously, laz? I just pointed out reality and now you are giving me an unrelated project assignment? No thanks.

    -- Posted by fair share on Sat, Dec 9, 2017, at 9:03 PM
  • What reality, Fare? It was a rhetorical question. There is nowhere that has been peaceful for "centuries." The truth is, the Middle East was relatively peaceful for some 600 years under the Ottoman Empire. Relatively being the key term, since they had conflicts with rival Empires on an ongoing basis. The internal conflicts really began after WWI, when the Western powers broke up the Empire, forming Turkey and a bunch of other illogically subdivided nations that mixed different ethnic groups, and left others with no nation at all just divided among the nations we created.

    The Israel/Arab conflict only dates back to 1948 (something less than "centuries" if you haven't thrown out math, along with science), when the West decided to "create" a Jewish nation right in the middle of Palestine, because, what the heck, they used to have a nation there. This would be like the Chinese deciding to give North Georgia back to the Cherokees, because, what the heck, they used to have a nation there.

    Your happy fantasy world, where some peoples are inherently violent, and others are not, is just that; a fantasy. White people have committed just as many, and just as horrifying atrocities as anyone else, and you don't have to go back to ancient history to find it. We are not worse than anyone else, but neither are we better.

    -- Posted by lazarus on Sun, Dec 10, 2017, at 12:26 AM
  • Laz, the reality is that Jerusalem is the capitol of Israel. Not because Trump says it is. Because Israel says it is. Now, granted, I didn't major in math in college. It was one of my minors since it was minorly important to me. Used to be that a 5th grade math class could figure this out in less than a minute, but what with common core I know it would be a struggle for them now. The Arabs and the Jews have been going at it since the time of Ishmael. I'm not exactly sure of his birth date, but it was a long time ago. Several centuries BC. Or would you understand better if I called it BCE? Either way, a little more than 59 years.

    What I have a hard time making sense of is: the Arabs have a bigly massive sandpile yet go postal over the thought of Israel having 1/10 of 1% of it. Then I realize they won't be happy til Israel is wiped off the face of the earth and nary a Jew is left. Hitler wasn't the only bad guy.

    I'm not sure where you get that I think some peoples are inherently violent and some aren't. The violence is something they learn. Some groups of people may be better about teaching it to their young than others but all groups have a seat at that table.

    -- Posted by fair share on Sun, Dec 10, 2017, at 8:10 AM
  • When was the last big Amish war?

    -- Posted by quietmike on Sun, Dec 10, 2017, at 8:24 AM
  • Not sure, but they used to show the Amish Mafia on tv.🤣😆🤣

    -- Posted by fair share on Sun, Dec 10, 2017, at 12:42 PM
  • The Amish have their own problems also such as incest and child abuse.

    -- Posted by lets be real on Mon, Dec 11, 2017, at 11:23 AM
  • Muslims are notorious for raping children. Their leader "married" a six year old.

    The penalty for stealing in many muslim countries is losing an arm,even for children.

    FWIW-It wasn't an Amish man who detonated a bomb in NY this morning.

    -- Posted by quietmike on Mon, Dec 11, 2017, at 11:45 AM
  • Poor unreal. It must be a miserable existence when you have to badmouth everyone, even the Amish. I won't say it has never happened, but for the most part, the Amish don't kill their kids, especially while God is in the process of knitting them together in their mother's womb. Does that imagery happen to ring any bells?

    -- Posted by fair share on Mon, Dec 11, 2017, at 1:34 PM
  • Fare; The Amish have their issues at just about the same rate as everyone else. There are just far fewer Amish, and they seldom report crimes to civil authorities. As Less B Real pointed out, incest, child abuse, and rape are particular issues, exacerbated by their belief in forgiving the offender and not turning them in to civil authorities. The favored form of interpersonal "violence" seems to be the cutting off of beards or hair, which has particular significance in their culture. And don't imagine that, because the church does not sanction it, abortion does not occur. The Amish are still people.

    -- Posted by lazarus on Mon, Dec 11, 2017, at 2:06 PM
  • Forgiving the offender...

    What about a culture that doesn't believe child rape is an offense?

    https://mobile.nytimes.com/2015/09/21/world/asia/us-soldiers-told-to-ignore-afgh...

    Muhammad was insane and was forced to live in a cave by his community. While there he had a hallucination that Gabriel told him that following islam would result in an eternal orgy in the afterlife. That type of motivation reveals plenty about its followers.

    -- Posted by quietmike on Mon, Dec 11, 2017, at 3:37 PM
  • You read into it what you want to read into it. Their culture does not believe that it is ok. If you will notice, the local people asked why we allowed these people to do things that were "worse than the Taliban". Pedophiles in their military are able to get away with it because of the support of our government. This is what you get when you accept any ally.

    -- Posted by lazarus on Mon, Dec 11, 2017, at 8:37 PM
  • Et tu, Laze? I understand that the Amish are people. But, I stand corre...wait a minute.

    " I won't say it has never happened,"

    -- Posted by fair share on Mon, Dec 11, 2017, at 1:34 PM

    Let's face it QM, the Amish must be terrible people. I was just about ready to say the only good people in the world are the muslims, but then thought I probably ought to add the Blacks and Hispanics. And the commies and antifa snowflakes. And women. Now that I've pondered it a bit, it seems that everyone is good people. Except for the dreaded white conservative male. At least that's what I've been told. Maybe I just hallucinated all that.

    All I know for sure is, based on the ones I have known, I would rather live next door to the average Amish than the average muslim, or Baptist for that matter.

    -- Posted by fair share on Mon, Dec 11, 2017, at 10:17 PM
  • I didn't say they were terrible people. Just not that different than everyone else... But you don't have to worry about living next door to one. They would not want to live next door to you.

    -- Posted by lazarus on Mon, Dec 11, 2017, at 10:29 PM
  • There is no "reading into it" pedophilia is not proscribed in the Quran. Mohammed, the founder of the religion, was a practicing pedophile. The only "law" is that the child must marry their abuser if the child is female.

    -- Posted by quietmike on Mon, Dec 11, 2017, at 10:34 PM
  • Come to think of it, I might not really care for living next door to the Amish. I have become dependent upon electricity. Dang that Tommy Edison. But a road or two over would be great.

    -- Posted by fair share on Tue, Dec 12, 2017, at 1:01 AM
  • And The Bible also recommends selling your daughters into slavery and stoning unruly children to death in the public square.

    -- Posted by RocketValentine on Tue, Dec 12, 2017, at 5:00 AM
  • Only if you still follow Mosiac law. You see many people doing that today?

    Only one religion still actually practices those types of things today on a meaningful scale.

    Seriously, when was the last time you heard of a stoning that didn't happen under islam?

    What country still practices slavery that also isn't run by islam?

    -- Posted by quietmike on Tue, Dec 12, 2017, at 5:47 AM
  • Just pointing out that if you take the scriptures of one religion literally, you should also do the same of your own.

    The Bible also says to kill non-believers or anyone that works on the day of worship.

    -- Posted by RocketValentine on Tue, Dec 12, 2017, at 7:06 AM
  • Some Christians know the Old Testament was fulfilled by Christ and nailed to the cross with him. That is why we have a new covenant, the New Testament. So far I have been unable to find where it tells me to kill the heathens. But if you can find it, please let me know where cause I would be interested in reading that!😉

    -- Posted by fair share on Tue, Dec 12, 2017, at 7:58 AM
  • Again RV, do you still know any practitioners of Mosaic law?

    Again, which religion currently condones, advocates, and practices slavery, child abuse, stoning,and other barbaric practices that other religions left behind at least a century ago?

    As Fair pointed out, anyone who actually knows the bible, instead of those who use it for a political punch line, knows Christians no longer live under the law, but under grace.

    On the off chance that you're really interested in understanding, try reading Romans chapter 7.

    -- Posted by quietmike on Tue, Dec 12, 2017, at 8:12 AM
  • The Ten Commandments are in the Old Testament and Christians still want it displayed in courthouses and public squares.

    Just another example of people picking and choosing which parts of their holy book they wish to follow.

    -- Posted by RocketValentine on Tue, Dec 12, 2017, at 8:51 AM
  • Again, if you knew the bible, instead of ignorantly trying to use it for ridicule, you'd know all ten commandments reappear in the new testament.

    -- Posted by quietmike on Tue, Dec 12, 2017, at 9:38 AM
  • Oh that part "reappears". Gotcha.

    That must have been tricky since you had already "nailed it to the cross with him".

    "Hold up!....wait, wait, we wanna keep that part! Somebody get a prybar."

    Are there any more "mosaic" parts of the Old Testament that you want to have magically "reappear" so you can claim them too?

    -- Posted by RocketValentine on Tue, Dec 12, 2017, at 10:02 AM
  • Again your ignorance and foolishness is the best advertisement against liberalism.

    Thank you.

    -- Posted by quietmike on Tue, Dec 12, 2017, at 12:08 PM
  • Thank you Trump and Bannon for helping Doug Jones win,keep up the good job.Now Moore can ride off into the sunset on that horse he rode in on to vote.He has dismointed and is defeated.The people of Ala has spoken and rejected Trump and Moore's sick values and divisiveness.Trump probably had to be sedated with more big macks and diet cokes.

    -- Posted by lets be real on Tue, Dec 12, 2017, at 11:16 PM
  • Congrats to the dummercrats. Looks like they found a winning formula for the next little while. Apparently getting women to suddenly pop up out of the blue alleging sexual assault from the distant past that was never proven or litigated is more effective than just indiscriminately whining "racist, racist, racist". I wonder when the people of Alabama will start to regret p*ssing on their heritage of being a red state?

    -- Posted by fair share on Wed, Dec 13, 2017, at 8:42 AM
  • Dems didn't beat Mooore, repubs just didn't elect him

    Repubs have higher standards.

    Dems will re-elect a crack smoking mayor in DC and a fresh out of prison mayor in Bridgeport.

    They simply don't care, as long as the gravy train keeps rolling.

    -- Posted by quietmike on Wed, Dec 13, 2017, at 9:00 AM
  • Suck it up, snowflakes

    -- Posted by RocketValentine on Wed, Dec 13, 2017, at 9:25 AM
  • Moore had the full support of Trump and 95% of the Republican Party.

    What does that say about their standards?

    -- Posted by RocketValentine on Wed, Dec 13, 2017, at 9:29 AM
  • Sorry, RV. Moore did not have the support of the Republican party. At least nowhere close to 95%. But maybe that is a good thing. You guys will have an easier time "resisting"/obstructing which means an easier time for Trump in 2020.

    -- Posted by fair share on Wed, Dec 13, 2017, at 9:50 AM
  • The republican governor of Alabama said she believed the allegations against Moore were totally credible, but she was still going to vote for him.

    So...she believes he's a pedophile, but would still support him and vote for him.

    Yeah, republicans have some real "high standards". 😂

    -- Posted by RocketValentine on Wed, Dec 13, 2017, at 9:55 AM
  • The ones that did vote for him were not voting for what he may have done in the past. They were voting for his vote for or against things that will come up in the Senate. Those that didn't vote for him effectively allowed someone into office that will vote the opposite way than they claim they want. Schizophrenic?

    -- Posted by fair share on Wed, Dec 13, 2017, at 10:15 AM
  • My point exactly. In the case of republicans, such as Alabama's Governor, a senate vote along party lines outweighs child molestation.

    High standards??

    -- Posted by RocketValentine on Wed, Dec 13, 2017, at 10:27 AM
  • Thanks to blacks for big turn out.People of Ala voted against Moore's racist views about minorities,child molestation and his fight against intergration.The man even wants to abolish all amendments after the 10th and we know what they are.His wife's remark about Jews and the way she said it was shocking.

    Trump is backing off his support of Moore and republicans will back off support of him with his low approval rating.

    -- Posted by lets be real on Wed, Dec 13, 2017, at 11:02 AM
  • I look at it as a spectrum. (Another term is a "slippery slope"). We don't really get to vote for people who are perfect, believe exactly the same as us, or will vote exactly the same way we would. We always have to accept some trade-offs. For some voters, the single-issue voters, there is one over-riding issue that transcends all others. These voters vote for the person who espouses their stand on that single issue, regardless of all other factors. Some voters vote for party, regardless of all other factors (back when the South was solidly Democrat, they used to call them "Yellow Dog Democrats.")

    At any rate, There are a lot of votes that are set in stone, and the candidates themselves do not matter. And among that set of voters Alabama is solidly Republican. It would take a lot to sway enough thinking voters to turn that any other way.... Enter the worst possible Republican candidate; Roy Moore. The extremists that control the primaries put him up there. But, they evidently over-reached on this one. Moore represents the White Supremacists. Even if he did have a jew among his lawyers, his words and actions tell who he is. And if anyone was on the fence about it, having the chief white supremacist as his spokesman did not leave any room for doubt. On top of that, you have the underage girls issue. I think there is insufficient evidence to say he is absolutely a "child molester." And he was never really linked with pre-pubescent girls. I like to believe that would have been too much for anyone to take. But, he himself admitted that he "might have" dated teenagers when he was in his 30's. Now, I am not 80 yet. But close enough to tell you that I would still remember it if I had dated 14-year-olds when I was in my 30's. Lets face it. The best you can say for a grown man in his 30's who chases 14 and 15 year old girls is that he is a little "creepy." Maybe a lot "creepy."

    So, the question became, are enough Alabama voters so turned off by the White Supremacist angle, or the Creepy angle to swing the election to a candidate with whom they are in philosophical disagreement.... I have to say, I am surprised at the result. And somewhat pleased. If the White Supremacists can't win an election in Alabama, they aren't going to win one anywhere.

    I am sure there will be a lot of anguish that this will set back the "Trump Agenda." Trust me, the real Trump Agenda of filling his pockets from the public till will continue apace. His agenda of adulation from his fans won't be rocked by anything. And his legislative agenda was already in trouble, but only because he is incapable of leading. he still has a majority in both houses and a stacked court. If he can't get his legislative agenda through, that is on him.

    And, if the Democrats take this as an endorsement of their policies, they will be sorely disappointed. Alabama is still conservative to the core. But they do have standards.

    -- Posted by lazarus on Wed, Dec 13, 2017, at 12:04 PM
  • Where is Steve Bannon aka Otis Campbell hiding?

    Omarosa now see how much Trump really cared about her loyalty. She did not go quite into the night.Secret Service say they were not involved in the removal meaning there was a removal.She tried to storm the white house residence and tripped the alarm.This will save taxpayers $180,000 a year paying a reality TV contestant with no experience.This administration will go down in history as the most corrupt and disorganized.Never in the history of America has so many of a president's administration been indicted in first year in office and your National Security Advisor pled quilty to lying and who knows what else.

    -- Posted by lets be real on Wed, Dec 13, 2017, at 7:57 PM
  • America has a president that is so thin skinned and insecure that the daily briefers have to tailor the briefing so as not to upset him.They can not mention situations dealing with Russia since he personally embraces Putin and is loyal to him.This is not good policy.Trump does not believe our intelligence agencies but puts all his trust in Putin.What ever is behind this bromance will soon be revealed by Mueller.

    -- Posted by lets be real on Thu, Dec 14, 2017, at 11:02 PM
  • Hmm.

    Hmm. Liberals believe the intelligence agencies have irrefutable proof of Russians meddling in the elections. Yet Mueller has been investigating for months, and still hasn't found it.

    Either Mueller is the most inept investigator since Barney Fife, or liberals are complete idiots.

    Anyone want to make a bet?

    -- Posted by quietmike on Fri, Dec 15, 2017, at 8:03 AM
  • No, the trophy for "Most Inept Investigator" still goes to House Benghazi Committee Chairman, Trey Gowdy.

    Gowdy and house republicans wasted two and a half years and 7.8 million dollars of taxpayer dollars on a bogus investigation that produced zero indictments.

    Mueller has only been at it a few months and already has four indictments and two guilty pleas.

    He's working his way up the ladder and the dominos will continue to fall.

    That's why Republicans are now trying to discredit him and the investigation.

    It's desperation. It's like in the movies when you see someone run out of bullets so they throw the gun.

    -- Posted by RocketValentine on Fri, Dec 15, 2017, at 11:23 AM
  • Gowdy had the disadvantage of working with the corrupt obama justice department. The one who "edited" Comey's report to make it less damaging.

    -- Posted by quietmike on Fri, Dec 15, 2017, at 2:27 PM
  • Well now they have Trumps corrupt justice department lets see if Gowdy do as thorough a job on Trump and his crooked cabinet as he did Hillary. Next week Mueller is interviewing Trump's lawyers and guess who will probably be next.

    Mueller has subpoenaed Trump and his families bank records from Wells Fargo and Deutsche Bank.I believe he will find out why they are so loyal to Putin and who offered what concerning sanctions.Follow the money.

    -- Posted by lets be real on Fri, Dec 15, 2017, at 8:11 PM
  • Gotta give you credit for optimism, QM. But there isn't even a question about the collusion any more. Genius Donnie Jr gave that up a long time ago. The only questions are; how high can the prosecutor get, can Trump find a way to stop the investigation without getting in deeper. Theoretically the president has the power to do so, but no one has tried that since Grant. Grant indeed stopped one investigation, but the political fallout (even then and even for a war hero) was too much to withstand. He had to open up another investigation, which took a bunch of his cronies down.

    I assume Trump kept a layer of insulation between himself and direct involvement, and he obviously will give up his people as sacrifices if need be. He does have the advantage of having a partisan Senate and House, but other than the whacky branch, I am not sure how far the Republicans will let him drag them down.

    I know it seems like it has been going on a long time. But this is not like a TV show, where they always have the answers in an hour. This is the real world, where collecting enough evidence to have actual trials, or to elicit guilty pleas, takes time. Especially when the target of the investigation has the ability to obstruct the investigation. Watergate took more than two years.

    -- Posted by lazarus on Fri, Dec 15, 2017, at 8:39 PM
  • Still no evidence of a single vote being changed by the Russians.

    I do appreciate the responses by the three liberal democrats,even if none wanted to take me up on the bet.

    -- Posted by quietmike on Fri, Dec 15, 2017, at 10:24 PM
  • Mueller is getting to close to Trump and in turn he is pressuring republican congressmen to shut down the investigation by discrediting Mueller.America is smarter than this,except for his 30%.

    -- Posted by lets be real on Fri, Dec 15, 2017, at 10:58 PM
  • How exactly is Trump pressuring republican congressmen? Trump isn't the beloved hero of the establishment on either side.

    Dumb is getting the vapors, thinking collusion is about to be proven, when collusion isn't a crime (except in esoteric anti-trust laws).

    -- Posted by quietmike on Sat, Dec 16, 2017, at 4:11 AM
  • Clearly the two who entered guilty pleas should have retained QM as counsel, instead of whatever amateurs they hired. Strain at gnats, and point out that the word collusion was not in there (guilty is guilty). Change topics again (as this whole investigation thread was a right angle turn from talking about Alabama's repudiation of the extreme right). Or just fall back on name calling.

    -- Posted by lazarus on Sat, Dec 16, 2017, at 7:57 AM
  • Good ol laz building another strawman.

    -- Posted by quietmike on Sat, Dec 16, 2017, at 1:50 PM
  • Do you know what a straw man is?

    -- Posted by lazarus on Sat, Dec 16, 2017, at 5:15 PM
  • Of course I do, you keep me stocked with examples.

    -- Posted by quietmike on Sat, Dec 16, 2017, at 6:15 PM
  • So, clearly you don't know what it means, it just sounds cool.

    -- Posted by lazarus on Sun, Dec 17, 2017, at 6:28 PM
Respond to this blog

Posting a comment requires free registration: