I Agree....We Should Pull Out.......

[Guest drlogic]

Lets all pull out and give up on ourselves as well

16,185 MURDERS; 92,837 RAPES A YEAR IN USA...

Violent crime in the US up again, more murders robberies,

By James Vicini

Mon Jun 4, 9:45 AM ET

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - More murders and robberies in 2006 sent U.S. violent crimes higher for the second straight year, the FBI said on Monday, with the increase blamed on gangs, youth violence, gun crimes and fewer police on beats.

The FBI reported that the number of violent crimes nationwide went up by 1.3 percent last year, following a 2.3 percent increase in 2005. That had been the first rise in four years and the biggest percentage gain in 15 years.

The report showed that murders in big cities jumped last year by 6.7 percent. Robberies, an important indicator of crime trends, increased 6 percent nationwide.

Cities with big increases in the number of murders included Orlando and Miami in Florida; Oakland and San Diego in California; Phoenix, Arizona; Corpus Christi, Texas; Grand Rapids, Michigan; Reno, Nevada and Little Rock, Arkansas.

Even though the higher violent crime numbers had been expected, they still represented bad news for Attorney General Alberto Gonzales, who has targeted violent crime as a top priority for the U.S. Justice Department.

A department study released last month of 18 metropolitan areas cited more violence by local gangs or street crews, a greater prevalence of guns in the hands of criminals and younger, more violent offenders as key reasons for the rising crime rates.

Criminologists agreed with those reasons and also said there are fewer police on the beat. They cited the Bush administration's shift in emphasis to prevent terrorism since the September 11 attacks and funding cuts for programs to put more police officers on the street.

'WAKE-UP CALL'

"The fact that we are seeing these increases several years in a row should be a wake-up call," said James Alan Fox, a professor of criminal justice at Northeastern University in Boston.

"There's a tendency to think the sky is falling. It's not," said Fox, noting the increases have been relatively small. "We're not talking about an epidemic here."

David Kennedy, director of the Center for Crime Prevention and Control at the John Jay College of Criminal Justice in New York, said the crime problems appear to be spreading to medium-sized and smaller cities.

He said the emergence of deadly drug crews or street gangs can have a potentially profound impact on a city's homicide or gun assault rate.

Lawrence Sherman, director of a criminology center at the University of Pennsylvania, called it an unusual pattern that murder is going up in some big cities, but down in others.

One possible explanation is that some police departments are doing much more to catch people illegally carrying concealed weapons, he said.

In the FBI report, murders nationwide increased overall by 0.3 percent. The increase in big cities was nearly offset by declines in non-metropolitan areas.

In the violent crime category, burglaries and murders increased nationwide while the number of rapes declined by nearly 2 percent and aggravated assaults fell slightly.

Violent crime went up in every region of the country except for the Northeast. The largest increase occurred in the West at 2.8 percent.

The number of so-called property crimes declined by nearly 3 percent. Burglaries and arsons increased while motor vehicle theft and larcenies and thefts decreased.

[Guest Seb]

Lets all pull out and give up on ourselves as well

Criminologists agreed with those reasons and also said there are fewer police on the beat. They cited the Bush administration's shift in emphasis to prevent terrorism since the September 11 attacks and funding cuts for programs to put more police officers on the street.

where are you going with this one ???

[Guest drlogic]

Lets all pull out and give up on ourselves as well

Criminologists agreed with those reasons and also said there are fewer police on the beat. They cited the Bush administration's shift in emphasis to prevent terrorism since the September 11 attacks and funding cuts for programs to put more police officers on the street.

where are you going with this one ???

So it's Bush's fault for cutting funding right? Yet your democratic friends who control congress voted for the cutting of the funds as well?

So underfunding security in a Country effets it's crime rate?

So pulling a few cops off the streets effects a Cities crime rate?

Yet your party (the left) wants to hault the funding of our troops and pull out of Iraq?

Hmmmmmmm sounds logical :

[Guest coach]

You really make no sense.

[Guest Seb]

Lets all pull out and give up on ourselves as well

Criminologists agreed with those reasons and also said there are fewer police on the beat. They cited the Bush administration's shift in emphasis to prevent terrorism since the September 11 attacks and funding cuts for programs to put more police officers on the street.

where are you going with this one ???

So it's Bush's fault for cutting funding right? Yet your democratic friends who control congress voted for the cutting of the funds as well?

So underfunding security in a Country effets it's crime rate?

So pulling a few cops off the streets effects a Cities crime rate?

Yet your party (the left) wants to hault the funding of our troops and pull out of Iraq?

Hmmmmmmm sounds logical :

ya there's a lot of "logic" in pouring all of our funding and resources into making sure that Iraq is secure, who cares about the country you actually live in right? : x 10

[Guest web_norah]

Dr Logic your threads have minus 20 logic -- what the hell?

[Guest drlogic]

You really make no sense.

May I suggest...............

[Guest coach]

So it's Bush's fault for cutting funding right? Yet your democratic friends who control congress voted for the cutting of the funds as well?

So underfunding security in a Country effets it's crime rate?

So pulling a few cops off the streets effects a Cities crime rate?

Yet your party (the left) wants to hault the funding of our troops and pull out of Iraq?

It's this commentary that doesn't make any sense.

This report covers 2005 mostly, and the few years before that. Dems didn't take Congress till 2006, so what do they have to do with it.

The report also cites Bush's cutting of funding for police and greater emphasis on terrorism than local crime. The Dems have not suggested cutting police funding, as far as I know.

Then you post an image about war in the middle east. But the report is talking about local crime. It does not mention the war specifically, but only obliquely, through the issue of Bush's focus on terrorism. It specifically notes his reduction in funding for police.

So, that's why I don't know what you are getting at.

[Guest drlogic]

[Guest endymion]

So it's Bush's fault for cutting funding right? Yet your democratic friends who control congress voted for the cutting of the funds as well?

This report covers 2005 mostly, and the few years before that. Dems didn't take Congress till 2006, so what do they have to do with it.

Dr Logic serves, Coach returns the ball, Dr Logic drops it. Point to Coach.

Hey Dr Logic, here's some interesting trivia about H.R. 1700, which would put 50,000 additional police officers on US streets with improved technology, at a cost of about $6/taxpayer over the 2008-2012 period. The bill was written by Democrats, and is almost entirely sponsored by Democrats. Take a look at how the House vote on the bill went. 34 "Nay" votes, 100% of those votes were Republicans.

Would it help if I colored it for you? Okay here. The red spots are the Republican districts that voted against 50,000 additional police officers on the street:

[Guest coach]

It is kind of funny that Dr Logic posts a blatantly anti-Bush story, I reference this quote -

"'WAKE-UP CALL'

"The fact that we are seeing these increases several years in a row should be a wake-up call," said James Alan Fox, a professor of criminal justice at Northeastern University in Boston."

But he seems to think it is anti-Democrat. When asked how he came to his conclusion, he responds with, well, with I am not sure what. I realize I have also now abondoned good argumentative technique for an ad hominim attack, but I can't see how to have a discussion with someone who just posts nonsense.

I mean, sure, if it is just for fun, then great.

[Guest endymion]

...I can't see how to have a discussion with someone who just posts nonsense.

That's just normal. They learn it from Bill O'Reilly and Rush Limbaugh, people like Ann Coulter who would rather call somebody a "faggot" than discuss the issues at hand. For example when I posted this thread in February of 2004, before the photos leaked from Abu Ghraib, before Haditha, before the secret CIA prisons were exposed, I got a lot of responses like this:

you techjunkie are truely and idiot... sure you read some history books, but you failed to interpret them correctly.

As it turns out, my fears were justified. But as you can see from the thread nobody was interested in reasoning, only insults. Blind faith in Our Great Leader turned out to be a big mistake.

[Guest jamu]

DR Logic you really need to chage your name. And you really need to read something more elementary then dummies books before you go off spewing middle east policy without even remotely understanding what the hell was going on over there before 9/11. And copy pasting articles off of conservative right wing nut job news sites doesn't make you look any smarter for it.

Try understanding the people the culture, the reasons for hostility, and the actions we have taken to incur such hatred to us. Mind you there are a lot of muslim fanatics I grant you, but they also remind me of the American fanatics that scream war support as well. Go watch fox news while our muslim friends read the Koran. :

[Guest drlogic]

Nice try haters. You may fool some on this board but not me. Domestic spending under this admin has been astronomical. Demz normally would be ecstatic about such a surge in domestic spending, but it’s being done by a Rep, so they obviously have to spin shit. It’s okay,,,,,THAT’S POLITRIX. That’s how it works. If the script were flipped, I’m sure Repz in D.C. would put their own spin on it. Either way you look @ it…..it’s SPIN, SPIN BABY!

What Tech is failing to detail is that money was not CUT, rather proposed budget increases were cut. MEANING: There was still a budget increase, just not as big as was originally requested. You see, to politrixta’s, that EQUALS A CUT. In reality, a CUT IN AN INCREASE IS STILL AN INCREASE. Get it? I can always color it for you again!

Why were there cuts in increases? Let’s see? What has happened in the last 6 years? Recession (mild, but still a recession), 9/11, stock market tumble, massive hurricanes, floods, wild fires, creation of homeland security dept. War in Afghan, War in Iraq, etc..etc..etc….(To name a few). Hmmmmmmm

I’ll say it again: If only the left would hold themselves and their policies to the same standards they now seem to demand from the right, we might all be living in a better America. Until then, it’s all hot air. When liberal arguments/ issues are dissected one-by-one, they always go down in flames,,,,which is why when arguing w/ a liberal, they always try shifting the argument from one topic to another and another and another…because they can’t defend themselves w/ anything that’s remotely logical or backed up by historical events/facts. It’s not in their best interest to have their policies examined/dissected because it ain’t pretty. So, they just continue to attack, attack, attack forcing the right to defend, defend, defend while simultaneously distracting the country from their own failings. It’s a “tactict†void of principal and core values.

[Guest coach]

Okay, I think I understand what you are saying now, but let me restate to make sure. Crime has increased during the past few years because the Democrats, who were the minority in Congress, did not increase spending on Police enough, partly due to the following issues:

Why were there cuts in increases? Let’s see? What has happened in the last 6 years? Recession (mild, but still a recession), 9/11, stock market tumble, massive hurricanes, floods, wild fires, creation of homeland security dept. War in Afghan, War in Iraq, etc..etc..etc….(To name a few). Hmmmmmmm

So, it is the Democrat's fault that crime went up over the past few years because they did not spend enough of Police. Is that correct?

[Guest endymion]

Criminologists agreed with those reasons and also said there are fewer police on the beat. They cited the Bush administration's shift in emphasis to prevent terrorism since the September 11 attacks and funding cuts for programs to put more police officers on the street.

So it's Bush's fault for cutting funding right? Yet your democratic friends who control congress voted for the cutting of the funds as well?

This report covers 2005 mostly, and the few years before that. Dems didn't take Congress till 2006, so what do they have to do with it.

The report also cites Bush's cutting of funding for police and greater emphasis on terrorism than local crime. The Dems have not suggested cutting police funding, as far as I know.

Here's some interesting trivia about H.R. 1700, which would put 50,000 additional police officers on US streets with improved technology, at a cost of about $6/taxpayer over the 2008-2012 period. The bill was written by Democrats, and is almost entirely sponsored by Democrats. Take a look at how the House vote on the bill went. 34 "Nay" votes, 100% of those votes were Republicans.

What Tech is failing to detail is that money was not CUT, rather proposed budget increases were cut. MEANING: There was still a budget increase, just not as big as was originally requested. You see, to politrixta’s, that EQUALS A CUT. In reality, a CUT IN AN INCREASE IS STILL AN INCREASE. Get it? I can always color it for you again!

You asserted that there are not enough cops on the street and that it's the fault of Democrats.

Coach says well hey wait these funding decisions were made by Republicans, not Democrats, and that Democrats never tried to cut local law enforcement funding.

I point to a bill from Democrats that will INCREASE the number of cops on the street where 100% of the opposing votes were from Republicans.

You go on to say:

I’ll say it again: If only the left would hold themselves and their policies to the same standards they now seem to demand from the right, we might all be living in a better America. Until then, it’s all hot air.

You're spouting a lot of hot air in this thread. Democrats are taking real action and pushing legislation through Congress to put an additional 50,000 cops with better technology on the streets.

When liberal arguments/ issues are dissected one-by-one, they always go down in flames,,,,which is why when arguing w/ a liberal, they always try shifting the argument from one topic to another and another and another…

Stop with the insults and re-read the thread that YOU started. We're consistently talking about the position of the Democratic party on local law enforcement funding, which is the topic that YOU posted. Your responses have been a couple of funny insults and then a contradiction of your own article that you posted.

[Guest drlogic]

[Guest coach]

Oh good lord! So your point was that we should stay in Iraq because if we pull out there will be more violence over there??? Well, shit, why didn't you just say so? Even I would agree with that. It looked like you were making some commentary about the domestic situation, since your tagline was "pull out of America."

[ryan2772]

some people have WAAAAAAAAAAAAAY too much time on their hands.

but yes, it is a very pretty post, all the wonderful colors of the rainbow.

good job buddy!

[Guest endymion]

If you had just articulated your argument in the first place then we wouldn't have spent a whole page wondering how it makes sense for you to blame Democrats for crime in the US.

Suddenly Dr Logic is stricken with concern for Iraqi civilians. About 64,000 dead bodies too late, but he's catching up with us at least.

Dr Logic, you're saying that Iraqis want us there to be their cops? They do not. They wanted us out a long time ago.

Or are you saying that they need us there, for their own good, even though they think that they want us out? That we know what's best for them? That they will have self-determination only in the way that we determine? Democracy only as we allow it? As your argument shifts, that becomes the new basic flaw. If they don't want us there but we stay because we want to stay, then we are "occupiers" and not "liberators".

Things that "occupiers" do that "liberators" don't do:

[Guest drlogic]

I knew the crayon font would help.

We will never agree.

Proceed!

[Guest endymion]

when arguing w/ a liberal, they always try shifting the argument from one topic to another and another and another…because they can’t defend themselves w/ anything that’s remotely logical or backed up by historical events/facts. It’s not in their best interest to have their policies examined/dissected because it ain’t pretty.

I knew the crayon font would help.

We will never agree.

Proceed!

Now that you've shifted topics and confused us a few times, you owe us more than that for a 'remotely logical' defense of your argument, or else you're just a condescending hypocrite.