So much for Republican's family values.

[Jaimecbr900]

why is that so impossible...to understand someone's logic, but still feel like they're going about it wrong???

Ok, I'll concede. I understand what you're saying now.

and here lies the problem; the BIGGEST "NOBAMA" problem...i made ONE reference to black youth death rate, and why he's able to pull "certain" black voters, and now i've given you ALL THESE BLACK FIGURES...lol, nevermind the fact that i told you he wants to provide EVERYONE with better LOCAL LAW ENFORCEMENT. i should've just said, "i'm making a valid point! here's a straw...grab it! QUICK!"

The problem is not a color one. It is a problem of disarmament. If you don't fight criminals on various fronts, i.e. laws/jail time/law enforcement/AND the threat of getting shot and killed by law abiding citizens, then you will never be successful at "solving" the problem. We know that jails are over crowded. We know law enforcement is over taxed. So what's left? Think about it. It's been shown a thousand times in a hundred studies that criminals fear getting shot by far and away MORE than even jail time. Then why take away THE biggest deterrent? He needs to realize that.

ok, i get it...so SADDAM IS TO BLAME FOR 9-11 AND WE DIDN'T KILL HIM FOR PAST WAR CRIMES AGAINST HIS OWN PEOPLE...alright, it's making sense

Are you purposely over looking what I really typed?

I clearly said OSSAMAH is to blame for 9-11 and CLINTON had OSSAMAH in his cross hairs way before 9-11 and CHOSE NOT TO kill him. Saddam got his because of his arrogance in not abiding with the terms of his own surrender treaty. Two different people, two different reasons.

you're right...instigate was a bad choice of words, i can admit that...hardheaded like Palin's daughter is more like it (he didn't listen to daddy). how many service members did we lose to kill ONE MAN??? you know as much as i know, politics is more than just you, me, and the american people. dude, EVEN ROCKEFELLER admitted to sitting down and having a conversation with bin laden 20 years ago...and who was president and vice president then??? REAGAN AND BUSH SR. i'm sure bin laden didn't wake up in 2001 and say "well...i think i'm going to become an extremist today." talk about having someone in your sights...lol

Hence the reason why "sitting down to pacify" is a bad idea all the way around.

damn man...i looked it up, explained it to you, and even gave you the SOURCE to educate yourself, and all you can tell me is "look up figures..."
lol, at the end of the year it'll be TOO LATE. besides...it was named "ECONOMIC STIMULUS" for a reason, that should explain enough for you right there.

You didn't get it. Show me figures at the end of the year where all 4 quarters are there to see a true pattern. Just because there's a "sale" on eggs today doesn't mean that over the last few years their price hasn't actually gone UP, does it? Same thing here. Just because there was an increase in the GDP between two quarters doesn't mean that it will REMAIN at the end of the year. That's my point.

ask our fearless leader...i can't answer that for you. if you took the time to read the article i pointed you to, you'd see that the dems actually requested a second stimulus check be issued...bush felt like it did enough and wasn't necessary...meanwhile THE COUNTRY is still in debt.

GDP has nothing to do with national debt, right?

i never said i didn't know...i told you to prove it. show me figures of the people that blew that money vs. the people that did what they were supposed to do with it. of course the negative is going to stand out...

OH, and for the record...FEMA check recipients weren't the only ones to waste money. how much of the disaster area did the government actually rebuild? how about their plans to get rid of low income/affordable housing and replace them with lavish, high income neighborhoods, country clubs, and casinos.

I will dig up some articles about this.

As for rebuilding.....do you want them to re-build 60 yr old houses with 60 yr old houses???? You can't do that, right? So what's wrong with re-building something old with something new and probably better?

[stephen]

Ok, I'll concede. I understand what you're saying now.

lol, atleast we agree on something!

The problem is not a color one. It is a problem of disarmament. If you don't fight criminals on various fronts, i.e. laws/jail time/law enforcement/AND the threat of getting shot and killed by law abiding citizens, then you will never be successful at "solving" the problem. We know that jails are over crowded. We know law enforcement is over taxed. So what's left? Think about it. It's been shown a thousand times in a hundred studies that criminals fear getting shot by far and away MORE than even jail time. Then why take away THE biggest deterrent? He needs to realize that.

i agree, that's very true. the issue of crime is something that's hard to take on, and definitely not something that should be left ONLY in the hands of ANY PRESIDENT. our local government needs to do a better job also. not to mention, our ridiculous unemployment rate (which has just seen another INCREASE), and poor economy don't help the crime situation ('Fun With Di.ck and Jane' is a perfect example). the government can do all it wants to punish criminals, but you have to attack some of the root issues. there are SO MANY factors that influence crime, so there can never be a cut and dry solution, but you still have to start somewhere. crime is an issue where regardless of who's president, they're going to have to reach across party and government lines to fight it together.

Are you purposely over looking what I really typed?

I clearly said OSSAMAH is to blame for 9-11 and CLINTON had OSSAMAH in his cross hairs way before 9-11 and CHOSE NOT TO kill him. Saddam got his because of his arrogance in not abiding with the terms of his own surrender treaty. Two different people, two different reasons.

no, i understand what you said..and yes, maybe clinton should have taken him out. the only point i was making was that he wasn't the only one to not take him out. bottom line...our government saw saddam as being "beneficial." if you talk to some older military guys, they'll tell you that we had saddam on more than one occasion, even when bush sr. was in office.

Hence the reason why "sitting down to pacify" is a bad idea all the way around.

the sit down and talk idea is strictly politics. we OBVIOUSLY can't afford to stick our guns in EVERYONE'S face...it's just impossible. we need to focus more on DEFENSIVE operations, as opposed to drawing the first gun. sometimes the best offense is a good defense...right? obama has a LOT of homeland security type policies, that'll benefit us far more than squeezing the trigger. you said it yourself...criminals are far more afraid of someone defending themselves than punishment. i highly doubt obama is going to sit down and hold hands with terrorist. i can see him saying, "look, i really don't have the time to kill every last one of you...and you know i can. just chill out, and we'll all be cool."

You didn't get it. Show me figures at the end of the year where all 4 quarters are there to see a true pattern. Just because there's a "sale" on eggs today doesn't mean that over the last few years their price hasn't actually gone UP, does it? Same thing here. Just because there was an increase in the GDP between two quarters doesn't mean that it will REMAIN at the end of the year. That's my point.

EXACTLY! the point is WHAT CHANGED THE GDP? providing WORKING families under a $75k salary with a tax break. if you continue THOSE TYPES of trends, now giving those breaks to WORKING families under $250k, what do you think the outcome will be? if the MAJORITY of people can't even afford the "sale" on eggs, then who's going to buy them (regardless of the price trend)?

if you reduce EVERYONE'S income taxes, then where do you think they'll get the money for this trillion dollar debt? they'll tax our goods harder...right? when milk goes to $20 a gallon, then what? you finally end up with sh.it like a STRONG black market, which is FAR MORE DETRIMENTAL than taxing a few rich folks.

ZIMBABWE is a prime example of this. my aunt went there for a year, and this is exactly how their economy is. a loaf of bread is the same amount as some people's paychecks.

GDP has nothing to do with national debt, right?

actually, it does. GDP is the value of goods produced domestically. we're spending more money than we make, and that's the problem...DEBT.

GDP = consumption (citizens) + investment + spending (government) + (exports-imports)

consumption - the amount of money WE spend on domestic goods
investment - money invested in our goods (private and public)
spending - what the government spends (including MILITARY SPENDING)
exports/imports - self explanatory

I will dig up some articles about this.

As for rebuilding.....do you want them to re-build 60 yr old houses with 60 yr old houses???? You can't do that, right? So what's wrong with re-building something old with something new and probably better?

the logic behind that is fine. the problem is, they're not creating AFFORDABLE housing. what happens to the people who can't afford these new "lavish" properties? these people didn't ask for their $50k 60yr old home to be destroyed (by a storm...not bush lol), and now replaced by a $200k 3 month old home that they can't afford.

regardless, i understand your point...people are going to take advantage of the government. the government is also going to take advantage of the people though. it's a never ending battle...but in the end, you can't forget about the people who do the right thing, and the effect they have on our nation...political figures and citizens alike.