Republicans want more murders and rapes

[ralph124c]

Don’t forget, Biden’s the guy who talked about his ancestors, laboring in the coal mines of Delaware (a speech he had plagiarized from Neil Kinnock, a British politician).
Nobody takes Biden seriously-he’s sort of a standing joke in Washington.
And he went for an “el cheapo” hair transplant-looks awful with his orange spray-on tans.

[Lobohan]

@Shodan

Gotcha. Thanks for the clarification.

Of course, this -
still constitutes a rape reference. And Biden did stick to his prediction that rape, murder and crime in general, would continue to rise if Republicans didn’t pass the bill.

So as far as can be determined, Biden did indeed claim that rapes would continue to increase if Republicans did not support Obama’s jobs bill. But, since we have already established that rapes have not increased, but rather decreased, it seems clear that both Biden’s premise and his conclusion are wrong.

Regards,
Shodan

Your thinking about this seems a bit fuzzy.

Biden can be factually correct or factually wrong without saying* Republicans want more rape*. He’s saying that because of Republican ideological obstructionism, more rape will be the consequence.

Much like Republicans were willing to stop the increase of the debt ceiling. They didn’t want the destruction of the world economy, but it would have been the result of their ideological obstructionism.

If you take a few seconds to think about the issue, you’ll find that to be true.

[Mr.Moto]

@Lobohan

Biden can be factually correct or factually wrong without saying* Republicans want more rape*. He’s saying that because of Republican ideological obstructionism, more rape will be the consequence.

Honest answer, please - do you really think this bill will affect crime rates one way or another?

[Lobohan]

@Mr.Moto

Honest answer, please - do you really think this bill will affect crime rates one way or another?

I would think that more police would have some, perhaps modest effect on crime rates. If you see patrolling cars you’re less likely to commit a crime, right?

But where the Republicans are especially stupid on this is, even if it doesn’t drop crime rates, it will certainly increase the amount of investigation each crime gets. Don’t you think that crimes should be investigated fully?

[Mr.Moto]

@Lobohan

I would think that more police would have some, perhaps modest effect on crime rates. If you see patrolling cars you’re less likely to commit a crime, right?

But where the Republicans are especially stupid on this is, even if it doesn’t drop crime rates, it will certainly increase the amount of investigation each crime gets. Don’t you think that crimes should be investigated fully?

I think you are speculating on both counts, frankly. You cannot possibly show me any evidence that an increase in federal police spending can have these effects, given that police budgets and personnel decisions are still going to remain a local decision.

Remember, this was tried in a big way with the COPS program of the Clinton administration:

Clinton and other supporters of the program say it deserves much of the credit for the sharp drop in crime in recent years. It may seem like a validation of COPS that the rate of violent crime peaked in 1994, the year it was enacted. But the homicide rate began falling in 1991, and property crimes have been have been coming down since the mid-'70s. Drug arrests, on the other hand, rose in the last decade. Whether COPS had anything to do with these trends is anyone’s guess. A 1999 investigation by the Chicago Tribune that looked at the nation’s 50 largest police departments found “no correlation between the growth in the number of officers and crimes rates since 1993.” The NIJ researchers would go no further than to say, “We cannot rule out the possibility that the program accounts for part of the drop in national crime statistics.”

The lack of any evident connection may be explained in any number of ways. It may be that the number of police added under COPs was too small to make a difference. It may be that the new hires were too widely distributed. Or it may just be that there is no necessary relationship between the number of cops and the number of robbers, which is the view of many experts.

Cite.

[elfkin477]

@Lobohan

I would think that more police would have some, perhaps modest effect on crime rates. If you see patrolling cars you’re less likely to commit a crime, right?

I’m not sure it would have the effect considering that the crime has already over the course of Obama’s administration without additional police; how much more could hiring a few hundred police accomplish? They’re even calling it “The Obama effect.” I wouldn’t vote for him but I think he’d be wise to tout that in his ads next year because it’s unassailable.

[tomndebb]

@Shodan

But no one is complaining just because Biden made a speech. All the criticism is based on the exaggeration and outright falsehoods he included in the speech. So your justification for a tu quoque is not valid.

If one wishes to know if what he said was ridiculous in and of itself, you don’t need to compare it to other politicians’ speeches. Just compare it to the facts. If, as it turns out, it is very far from accurate in its assertions, then you know that the speech is ridiculous, and you don’t have to drag in what Republicans say at all.
But, you will notice that Biden’s claims about rapes were false - they did not increase, they decreased.

So you are OK with a politician making a false statement, provided his facts are also wrong?

:shrugs:

Regards,
Shodan

I seem to recall various partisans pretending that there really were WMDs found in Iraq long after the truth of that issue was settled to the contrary. When those partisans issue an actual apology or recognition that those claims were false, I will bother to worry about the accuracy of political rhetoric among their opponents.

It would be nice if Biden could get his facts straight. It would be nice if everyone ever coached by Karl Rove would speak honestly. As long as both sides are more interested in making political hay with their own partisans than they are in actually speaking truly, I will treat all of them as mere players and I will note that extreme partisans on both sides are just that–partisans with no more scruples than their leaders.

[What_the]

@Lobohan

Reread my post and try again. The administration is asking for additional funding for police.

Republicans want to obstruct anything the administration wants, because Republicans think obstructing the president is worth fewer police on the street. Republicans think the price of fewer police would be more than paid for by the benefit of not giving the administration what they want.

Don’t you think that alot of Republicans would vote for a bill that quit spending money trying to create green jobs and instead spent it on cops?

Of course Obama would never propose that so you can still be right.

[Czarcasm]

@What_the

Don’t you think that alot of Republicans would vote for a bill that quit spending money trying to create green jobs and instead spent it on cops?

Of course Obama would never propose that so you can still be right.

I think that a fair number of Republicans might. The Republicans in Congress have apparently decided this President must not be seen as successful in any way, and that if the country is worse off come election time they can blame it on Obama and his party. They have decided that the ends justify the means.

[Shodan]

@tomndebb

I seem to recall various partisans pretending that there really were WMDs found in Iraq long after the truth of that issue was settled to the contrary. When those partisans issue an actual apology or recognition that those claims were false, I will bother to worry about the accuracy of political rhetoric among their opponents.

The ultimate tu quoque.

Of course, you will be waiting a good long time before you get an apology from the extreme partisan asshole who told lies like this -

Well, the point is, it turned out they didn’t, but everyone in the world thought he had them. The weapons inspectors said he had them. He cataloged, they cataloged them. This was not some, some Cheney, you know, pipe dream. This was, in fact, cataloged.

Cite.

Saddam must be dislodged from his weapons or dislodged from power.

Cite.

He’s a long term threat and a short term threat to our national security… “We have no choice but to eliminate the threat. This is a guy who is an extreme danger to the world.

So good for you - you have a built-in excuse to ignore all the lies told by Democrats. Have fun with it.

Regards,
Shodan

[Mr.Moto]

@Czarcasm

I think that a fair number of Republicans might. The Republicans in Congress have apparently decided this President must not be seen as successful in any way, and that if the country is worse off come election time they can blame it on Obama and his party. They have decided that the ends justify the means.

Point blank - given what I posted above, do you really think that additional federal spending on police will have any measurable effect on the crime rate?

I think you know where I stand on the topic - and for good reason. There is no evidence that this additional spending will work, apart from acting as another pork-barrel handout to shore up President Obama’s base.

I’d be interested to know whether you agree.

[Jack_Batty]

And, you know, it will create jobs. But that only counts if a millionaire does it.

[tomndebb]

@Shodan

So good for you - you have a built-in excuse to ignore all the lies told by Democrats. Have fun with it.

I dunno. You have never even needed an excuse to ignore all the lies told by Republicans, so I am not sure why it would matter to you. To the extend that you want to consider my post a tu quoque, you may note that I used it in its legitimate rhetorical context, not fallaciously.

I’m not fond of any of the political parties; I just think that going around playing “gotcha” regarding one’s opponents–particularly while ignoring (or embracing) the lies told by one’s proponents–is silly.

I don’t think Biden should lie. I think that our various mendacious leaders should have been held much more accountable for years for their substantive lies. Whether it is Obama, Bush II, Clinton, Bush I, Reagan, and on into the past, they generally seem to get away with too much. However, when the only game appears to be playing “Your liar is really bad for getting these statistics wrong while my liar should be held blameless for this mess that harmed thousands of people,” I am more likely to point out that the game player is silly than that the politician is doing what politicians do. That is why I have actually defended GWB from some of the sillier accusations lodged against him on this board. He was a crappy president, but playing “gotcha” does nothing to fix the problems he created. So when Biden is discovered “misspeaking” one more time, I am more likely to note that the posters hurling brickbats are every bit as silly as those trying to defend his errors, particularly when they have, indeed, been guilty of defending worse lies by other administrations.