Kev,

The amount of sensationalism you managed to squeeze out of that strenuously narrow evidence is admirable.

Here's the Wiki page for that Peace Index thing: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Peace_Index

Michigan, where crime is out of control, is right down among the worst...just above South Carolina, Alabama, Texas, Nevada, and Louisiana.  Somehow, though, I'm assuming you don't conclude that therefore the "Rightism" that informs most of those states is a cancer on civilization.  I wouldn't either, since that's silly.  Detroit as a sample size is a little small, I think, to be supporting claims about an entire political ideology.

I'm constantly confused by your claims regarding "all liberals" or "all leftists."  Can you explain, simply, the view or views common to "all leftists" that are inherently wrong or harmful?

Well, being that I live in a blue state that shall remain nameless (Massachusetts), we have, quite possibly, the worst functioning state government in the country. It only improved in the slightest with Teddy and Barney Frank gone but as long as "Mumbles" is still the mayor of Boston and Deval is still the governor, new taxes will be added wherever they can make them and their will will be imposed.

Personally, I think having an overwhelming majority of either side is a bad thing because it eliminates compromise. No side should get exactly what they want, whenever they want. How can you have checks and balances that way?

This is the type fo positive ad that generates enthusiasm:

http://www.realclearpolitics.c.....o_turn_back_now.html

Spot on, IMO, and well said, IMO, Bill: http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2012/08/23/clear_choice_-_obama_for_america_tv_ad.html

Mr. Blonde, I didn't know you were a fellow Masshole. I grew up in Lawrence. The bar I owned was in Worcester. And I agree with you that one party domination can really cause problems, whatever the party. I still live near Lawrence, and what a disaster it is. Just another poster child for the dangers of big government and social planning.

You live in the trifecta from "L" (Lowell, Lawrence and Lynn), huh? I'm on the south shore and it's not exactly peaches and cream here, either.

Yeah, Blonde, Lynn is not really part of it though. Lowell, Lawrence, Haverhill. Merrimack River cities.

Chris, just saw your question, sorry about delay. I went to your link, and have little comment on something like that. A peace index? Really? I will say that the prime determining factor for statistical compilations like that are usually demographics. But there are other factors, such as how stats are gathered in the first place.

If you really disagree with me on this, take your next vacation to one of those places: Detroit, Camden, N.J, Chicago, Baltimore, Philly.

I will say that it's not just Detroit: it's most major American cities, the southern half of California. Areas that were once prosperous that have been brought down by decades of corruption, unionism, faulty social engineering, failing educational policies. We spend exponentially more on government and receive significantly less in return.

The road to hell is paved with you know what. Just because certain policies may sound well intentioned does not mean they achieve what they set out to. Results matter.

I won't be able to vote until the next presidential election due to my current residency status, but I'd like to say that I don't trust Obama or Romney in almost anything they say, so I don't know who I'd support even if I could vote. I hope Ron Paul keeps running just so he can make it harder on both of them.

At least it can't be any worse than the Mexican elections earlier this year.

--Julio

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QKv-dXHhtMs

This is undeniably true.

Don't forget that of the last 32 years, Republicans have spent 20 in the White House. So when you hear those blaming the Democrats, and principally, Barack Obama for the economic mess, remember that Republicans have held the White House for 62% of the last 32 years.

Why, Blondie, why.

Why what, Andrew? Why the Republicans? I don't believe in either party, but because this country was designed as a two-party system (Independents, Libertarians, Green, Rainbow, Nazis, they only exist to stop a final tally from being 51-49), I go with the one I agree with more.

See, a lot of what the Democrats' social foundation is built on is good ideas. I mean, they have welfare, unions, all public service jobs and believe everyone should have a fair chance. That's great. Here's the problem. They've all devolved into some kind of clusterfuck.

Welfare was originally designed as a leg-up for people who fell on hard times. Now, it's being used as a crutch by people who are too lazy to work. They bounce around from one social program to the other; Medicaid, SSI, Section 8, food stamps and then there's these women (I understand it, but hard-working women should be disgusted by this) who intentionally get pregnant time and time again so they can continue to collect SSI until the kid reaches 5-6 years old and they begin the cycle again. The system was a friendly thought, but it was never going to work the way it was intended to.

Next, we've got unions. Their job is to stand up for the worker against... well, getting screwed. The trouble is that they've changing into stonewallers who threaten with strikes first instead of trying to work out deals and who make it hard to fire people who aren't competent at their jobs. Have you seen how far a police officer has to go before he's reprimanded or fired? And, you have teachers who have been at the game so long, they've become complacent because when cuts do happen, their seniority keeps them at the top of the food chain. You know, I believe in cops, teachers, firefighters, etc. The problem with unions is they make it a challenge to separate the good ones from the bad ones.

Democrats also believe in giving everyone a fair shot. That's great. I agree with that. However, Republicans (regular people, not my scumbag business interests) agree with that as well. Where we differ is how we get there. Now, I'm going to stereotype here (I hope it's a stereotype and not truly accurate) and say that Democrats' ideas of giving everyone a fair chance is to take all the money from the rich bastards of this country and give everyone in the country a million dollars. Republicans' idea of this is just to be born and try and make as much money as you can during your lifetime.

The reason why I stereotyped there is because money matters are way too complicated to be debated in a simple paragraph on a screenwriting site. The point is that, in general, that's the concept that's being played out by the two candidates right now. Either be given all the money you want or work for it, but if you don't make it, "Oh well".

I could go on and on about the issues. I'm not a hardcore righty (after all, I believe in abortion so I'm fucked as far as the Republicans are concerned) but they mesh with my beliefs a little bit better than the Democrats do.

Sorry, I was referring to Clint Eastwood's bizarre speech at the RNC. He was called Blondie in The Good, The Bad and The Ugly.

Still, at least it's there for everyone to see that the gripes the Republicans have with Obama is in actual fact with thin air. Clint did a great job of crystalising the paranoia and fallacy of the guy they created: imaginary, invisible Obama, rather than the centrist he is. Clint's in the tank for Obama after all!

Good post, Blonde. I'm pretty much with you. Social liberal, fiscal conservative. With common sense limitations of both.

Example of common sense limitation on the social side: I don't think there should be discrimination against gays, but I don't think the government should be engaged in social engineering in the school systems.

I don't think government should be involved in private family decisions, whether that's abortion, or how children are raised and educated.

Example of common sense limitation on fiscal side: the nanny state has become a huge threat to both freedom and economic opportunity. Having the government involved in every type of economic decision, creating huge, self serving and self generating layers of bureaucracy(which is what O is doing) is a disaster. It will change our civilization, and not for the better.

But, we do need government: food inspectors, military, that kind of thing. And there should be some kind of safety net, such as social security.

As far as the economic mess, neither Bush not Obama created it. To some degree it is the result of unintended consequences of a variety of developments. Regulation can play a role in limiting future catastrophes, but there are dangers in regulation. The process can be abused and corrupted(look up O lackey Gov Corzine) or can do far more harm than good(Dodd Frank).

One thing almost everyone, even many honest liberals, now agree on: the government meddling in the real estate market by pushing mortgages to people who shouldn't have them played the biggest role in creating the problem. It was well intentioned, but in the end, it hurt far more people than it helped, by destroying the world economy, or almost. There should be a lesson in that about government planning and overreach. But this is not a lesson Obama and his type will ever learn.

Capitalist economies are cyclical. There are bubbles and busts. The trick is to limit the duration of the busts. The current bust has gone on far longer that they normally do. Let's compare to 2001. Bush took over as the dotcom bubble was busting. Phony accounting had lead to an overvaluation of companies in the late 90s. This helped Clinton, but it was built on illusion. It crashed in 2000. Bush had to deal with it.

And while things were still precarious, we had 9/11. So a double shot. And yet, things did turn around, the economy was pretty smooth for up until 2008.

Compare to today. We had our bust in 2008. Where is the bounce back four years later? It hasn't really happened.

Stimulus might have worked if it came in the form of a tax rebate. But instead Obama used most of it to reward cronies and attempt his version of a planned economy(GM, green energy). Which did not encourage sound economic activity.

Plus, with Obamacare, growing regulations, anti-business policies in federal departments, and an unsure tax situation, businesses are afraid to plan future activity. So there is no growth.

No President is responsible for creating a recession. But there is evidence that Presidential policies can prolong one.  

Quoted from leitskev One thing almost everyone, even many honest liberals, now agree on: the government meddling in the real estate market by pushing mortgages to people who shouldn't have them played the biggest role in creating the problem. It was well intentioned, but in the end, it hurt far more people than it helped, by destroying the world economy, or almost. There should be a lesson in that about government planning and overreach. But this is not a lesson Obama and his type will ever learn.

The assertion that the GFC was predicated on (what you failed to mention but have stated before) the Democratic Congress of the '06 mid-terms forcing lenders to provide mortgages is factually incorrect. Yes, the subprime bubble collapsed - and proved to be the trigger for a GLOBAL mountain of debt - but you're engineering an ideological slant peddled by far right-types that has no groundng in fact. Nobody credible in economics advances this theory (conservative or liberal) or "agree" on it as fact. It's disingenuous to say so. You are, of course, allowed whatever theory you like for explaining the GFC, but don't report it as a fact when it's patently not.

Clinton bequeathed Bush a surplus, whilst Bush handed Obama an economy heading off the cliff after a GLOBAL financial crisis. Do not downplay the enormity of what faced GLOBAL politicians in late 2008. The fallout we're seeing to this day in Europe and the States is a direct consequence of the GFC. To suggest what was handed to Obama was a cylical 'bust' is, again, patently false. To equate it with the dotcom bubble is beyond obscure.

I'm Canadian so I may not have all the facts at my disposal. But for what it's worth, The Right keeps belittling Obama for not pulling the nation out of recession after his four years.  I bet the U.S. would have been a lot better off had Americans not had an impatient knee-jerk reaction and voted in a Republican congress. Let's face it, it is largely due to the Republican Iron Curtain that the President cannot function for the betterment of the nation. Partisan politics is what has prolonged the economic agony, not Obama.