Republican debate tonight @ 8

[Sweet Pea 50]

You PC bruh??

Fuck yeah, brah.

Best way to crush pussy these days.

[1bad65]

You haven't presented anything actually.

Yes, I have. You just can't refute the facts presented so you're trying to say they don't exist.

These Democratic "strongholds" you talk about, who are the business owners there? Who controls the wealth and opportunities in those areas? Are you saying everything is owned and operated by the Democrats so look what happens? Is that the extent of your sociological skills and the depth of your curiosity? Wow, no wonder you go on and on without proving a point, your agenda won't allow that.

Obfuscation at it's finest.

I left you not with a statement, but a question. Answer it, don't ask me to answer it and/or your questions.

The causes are moot. I want to know why these problems manifest themselves in Democrat strongholds. They do, and that's irrefutable as you've shown. I'm just asking why it's that way.

These "hypotheses" contain more cogent facts in one sentence than you do in your entire post history.

False, and hyperbole to boot.

Hypothesis are not facts. Any HS student who passed Freshman Science should know this. What's your excuse for having be taught it as an adult?

Read the paper or STFU. I'm not going to hold the hand of a dimwit that continues to spew party lines like they address real underlying causes of crime and poverty.

Insults and name-calling are the antics of children and those of low intellect. They also show one has conceded the debate. Please, comport yourself as an adult in the future. I know you're trying to duck my question, but please, act like a grown up. I am, and thus you should be able to as well. Right?

The fact is it's a different party now regardless of it's historical origins. Do you get that?

I've heard that DNC talking point many times, yes. That doesn't make it true, however. Are the Reps now calling for slavery or the Jim Crow laws to return? If not, you have no point.

What you don't seem to get is that people support causes that best represent them in the here and now not during the era of slavery? Do you understand that?

Obviously I do, as I addressed that with facts and then asked you a question in light of said facts. That question is the one you are now ducking.

If you're going to be smug, it's best to it when you're winning the debate, not when you're stooping to insults, obfuscation, and fallacy.

[One_Tycoon]

What facts?



■ Inner-city poverty is the unanticipated consequence of public policy that was intended to alleviate social problems but has, in fact, caused them to worsen in some respects.

Learn more - http://poseidon01.ssrn.com/delivery....002124&EXT=pdf

This is one is correct...and one could write a whole paper on it. Why would you post this when this is exactly what the other poster was getting at...which is Democrat/Leftist policies and their unintended consequences on the poor.

■ Inner-city poverty reflects an endogenous growth deficit that results from low levels of entrepreneurship and access to capital, especially among minority populations.

Yes...but the problem isn't so much a lack of access to capital. Rather, the problem is barriers to entry...like having to start out by paying your workers a Government imposed minimum wage, instead of just paying them whatever the heck you want [or can afford] until your business grows. Just one of the many barriers.

See...if the starting point is that you have to have 1 million dollars to do X, Y, Z...majority of it being compliance costs, then the problem isn't lack of access to capital, the problem is all the Government created hurdles.

Inner-city poverty results from migration processes that simultaneously remove the middle-class and successful members of the community, thereby reducing social capital, while bringing in new, poorer populations whose competition in the labor market drives down wages and employment chances of residents.

One-Capppy's anecdotal observation. The vast majority of jobs in big cities are Fluff jobs. If you have no skills or aren't credentialed to your eyeballs...all you will get is the odd security job, restaurant job, call center or service sector fake job in general.

All the real goods producing jobs are outside of the cities. As a matter of fact, I was in Nashville just a while back and a few bums asked me for a dollar and I told them, that they're mass hiring at a manufacturing plant in Gallatin, Tn about 30 mins outside of nashville. The bum wasn't interested. Poor ppl with no skills have no business living in a big city where the cost of living is inflated in the first place. If they have access to the internet, they should be looking for labor jobs outside of cities, not in the cities. They can move just like anybody else, and go live in a cheaper town with lower rents and cost of living...as long as they're willing to leave behind the Big City social program tit which keeps them voting Democrat in every election. It's called free movement of labor and ppl.

We are all individuals and should take some self-responsibility, using our intelligence [if we have any] instead of playing the perpetual victim card

[Hitman Hodgson]

A lot of the problems in inner cities emanate from the ridiculous, and racially biased war on drugs.



Some more facts on the war on drugs here:
http://matadornetwork.com/change/10-...ar-will-shock/

[Slip Stream]

Yes, I have. You just can't refute the facts presented so you're trying to say they don't exist.

Actually no I'm not, you're pointing out the realities of the inner city and I'm trying to point to causes. I can agree that there are many things plaguing the inner city, see, I agree with that, but what I don't agree with is citing reality without context, but instead oversimplifying the complicated by just pointing to what's happening. Are you suggesting I'm saying the inner city is a garden paradise or something? If you are, you shouldn't be analyzing anything, you should be seeking treatment.

Obfuscation at it's finest.

I left you not with a statement, but a question. Answer it, don't ask me to answer it and/or your questions.

The causes are moot. I want to know why these problems manifest themselves in Democrat strongholds. They do, and that's irrefutable as you've shown. I'm just asking why it's that way.

Dude are you delusional? Who's obfuscating? You're talking about effects, while I insist that we included causes as well. It isn't enough to simply point at an effect and end there, honest intellectual inquiry digs down deep below the surface to understand why things happen the way they do. I know it's unpleasant to acknowledge some of those causes because they point to gross social inequities but that's how you suss things out. Again, I accept that "Democratic strongholds" are riddle with poverty and violence, the question then becomes why that is. If it sounds like a pat answer it probably isn't that. It isn't a wonder that these areas are Democratic, they've been subjected to oceans and torrents institutional disparity for generations.

"The causes are moot," oh is that right? You're more interested in a region that votes Democratic than why it's impoverished and oppressed? I agree they're Democratically controlled, but why would identifying them as such supersede the real economic and social pain they're feeling? I don't really see what you're getting at? What you're arguing is what I've already admitted, I'm digging down to the causes to perhaps connect them to voter behavior and why they became that stronghold. But this seems to pass right over your head, like one of the clouds your brain is floating away on. Bye, bye brain....

False, and hyperbole to boot.

Hypothesis are not facts. Any HS student who passed Freshman Science should know this. What's your excuse for having be taught it as an adult?

A hypothesis is essentially an educated guess, but it's part of a process that starts getting at what the facts could be. And as I stated, an educated guess is better than anything you've ever or will ever contribute, period and end of story. So no, it isn't hyperbole at all because all you want to do is argue and you use any little tactic to continue bull****ting, and I just happen to be one of those people that's going to call you on it, each and every time. Okay?

Insults and name-calling are the antics of children and those of low intellect. They also show one has conceded the debate. Please, comport yourself as an adult in the future. I know you're trying to duck my question, but please, act like a grown up. I am, and thus you should be able to as well. Right?

Sorry sugar bear do you feel better now? I'm so sorry for calling you names, but you shouldn't feel too bad sugar bear, after all it's your escape hatch. Because while you're wiping your tear soaked ****, you're free (through your blubbering of course) to change to other topics, to your hurt feelings, imaginary debate decorum, or the dirty butth0les of space aliens. For me it isn't so much about being an adult as it is about busting your chops because I think you're being deliberately obtuse. You know you are, so when I see that behavior I admit, I get a bit testy but I can work on that.

I've heard that DNC talking point many times, yes. That doesn't make it true, however. Are the Reps now calling for slavery or the Jim Crow laws to return? If not, you have no point.

Why is it untrue, setting aside the fact that you think it's a talking point? Are you suggesting that blacks should somehow shun a party that was once racist (but no longer is) simply because it was once? Do you realize how ridiculous that sounds. The fact is the Democratic Party best comports with what minorities want from America and the Republican party does not, which incidentally was the party of Lincoln. Guess what he did? But that party and modern Republicans are not the same thing, nor are they a true open tent.

The underlined was my point.

Obviously I do, as I addressed that with facts and then asked you a question in light of said facts. That question is the one you are now ducking.

If you're going to be smug, it's best to it when you're winning the debate, not when you're stooping to insults, obfuscation, and fallacy.

Dude, you're giving yourself credit for doing something you obviously didn't do. You presented "facts" and I causes, I don't see what the problem really is beyond that? I'm not ducking anything, I'm not allowing you to create a fog and cloud so you can ignore societal realities.

There hasn't been a debate dude, just me flogging an Ostrich with it's head, balls and anus buried in the sand.

[creekrat77]

Fuck yeah, brah.

Best way to crush pussy these days.

Dude! ****in sweeeet bruh, I'm PC Arizona St! Definitely gonna pound some major pooos tonight. So many male chauvinist pigs bringing down society, bout to rain down PC blows on those jabronis faces

[Weebler I]

I don't know if he won, but Trump shot up in the polls again after the debate.

#1 - Trump - 36%
#2 - Carson - 12%
#3 - Cruz - 11%

http://europe.newsweek.com/donald-tr...e-406903?rm=eu

[Jim Jeffries]

I expect Trump's poll numbers will fall after he loses Iowa to Ted Cruz and New Hampshire to Chris Christie. Carson has been plummeting for the last month or so. The race should then come down to Cruz and Rubio. The quality of the debates should improve dramatically when we get down to 4 or 5 people on the stage. That's all there should be now, since there's only 4 in double digits, nobody else above 5%. Let the rest fight it out at the kiddie table with Lindsay Graham.

NBC/WSJ poll has Trump at 27, Cruz at 22. Nobody is talking about it.

http://www.scribd.com/doc/293151693/...llot-Release-1

[Weebler I]

NBC/WSJ poll has Trump at 27, Cruz at 22. Nobody is talking about it.

I'm not sure whether people actually like Cruz or if he is just the most PC candidate that Republicans think can slick them back into office.

[One_Tycoon]

I'm not sure whether people actually like Cruz or if he is just the most PC candidate that Republicans think can slick them back into office.

You must not know Cruz. Cruz was Trumping it up in the Senate years before Trump was doing it.

He just wrote this about his own party: http://www.politico.com/magazine/sto...o-obama-213448