Another reason we are screwed in California

[tankarian]

saw this on Drudge today blacks may have woken up to the racism that is the left and the democratic party
whether this gains any traction is anyone's guess but the people who are in it speak the truth. if the democrats policies were so popular and successful our economy here in this state would be booming it's not.

They aren't.
If a national referendum would be held tomorrow to change the Constitution and approve Obola's appointment as a President for life, at least 75% of them would be delighted to approve the proposal.
People will live on the streets and will eat dirt and they will still vote for Obama and Democrats. What you see is happening in Detroit is a sneak peek to what it will happen in California in the future.

[razorduc]

Not surprising, the Democrats being the Party of the KKKlan.

Not sure what's more ironic, your statement, or the fact that you are making the statement.

[randian]

saw this on Drudge today blacks may have woken up to the racism that is the left and the democratic party

Not really. Listen to what this guy actually says. He refers to politicians not following the "black agenda". Why should there be a "black agenda", rather than an "everybody agenda"? He strikes me as somebody of the "gimme gimme" persuasion who is perfectly comfortable with racism, so long as it benefits him. It's true he criticizes people who happen to be Democrats for their failure and corruption, but that doesn't mean ever has or will vote Republican.

[chris]

They aren't.
If a national referendum would be held tomorrow to change the Constitution and approve Obola's appointment as a President for life, at least 75% of them would be delighted to approve the proposal.
People will live on the streets and will eat dirt and they will still vote for Obama and Democrats. What you see is happening in Detroit is a sneak peek to what it will happen in California in the future.

it took 50 years of democrat rule in Detroit to destroy that city I'd say this state is pretty close to becoming Detroit in the 5 to 10 years.

[Canadadry]

They aren't.
If a national referendum would be held tomorrow to change the Constitution and approve Obola's appointment as a President for life, at least 75% of them would be delighted to approve the proposal.
People will live on the streets and will eat dirt and they will still vote for Obama and Democrats. What you see is happening in Detroit is a sneak peek to what it will happen in California in the future.

You're wrong. Blacks were ready to give up on him. However, if he's attacked for no reason we were going to stand with him. The attacks against him were attacks we've been hearing for years.

That's the irony of it all. We were ready boot him until it seems like he was being attacked unfairly.

The other piece of it is. You can't say nasty stuff about a group or not actively campaign for their votes and expect them to vote for you.

Rand Paul is actually trying to reach out to African Americans.

Let's not act like it's only blacks that like free stuff. My father in-law is white, start talking about getting rid of Social Security he's not trying to hear that. He is a registered Republican that has vote democrat the last couple year. He want's his free stuff just like everybody else.

[tankarian]

Not sure what's more ironic, your statement, or the fact that you are making the statement.

Please elaborate. Are you accusing me of racism?

[tankarian]

You're wrong. Blacks were ready to give up on him. However, if he's attacked for no reason we were going to stand with him. The attacks against him were attacks we've been hearing for years.

That's the irony of it all. We were ready boot him until it seems like he was being attacked unfairly.
.

Oh you mean unfairly attacked for the Fast & Furious mess where he unjustifiably claimed executive privilege to cover Holder's crimes? Or for the Benghazi cover-up where the US ambassador and two other Americans died while he left for a fundraising event in Vegas instead of staying in DC and making decisions in the situation room? For the IRS scandal where he used the most feared federal agency to punish his political enemies? For the fact that millions of Americans lost their health insurance or got their premiums jacked up because of Obamacare - and FYI- I'm one of them? Or maybe because he caused the ISIS mess and hundreds of of thousands dead or displaced because he refused to reach a security agreement with the democratically elected government of Iraq? How about the Ebola virus reaching the US because he still doesn't want to ban civilian flights from countries where the epidemic is out of control, is that also an unfair accusation? How about pursuing an amnesty for ILLEGAL immigrants despite the fact that the Congress and an overwhelming majority of Americans reject it? Is that also "unfair"?
No really, who do you believe you are fooling when you say "we were ready to boot him"?
Do you really think we are stupid enough to buy that? Here is the truth pal: you always were and still are his fanboy. You drooled over "Hope and Change", you were hypnotized by his empty promises and he played you for a fool. He didn't do anything for you while he made sure he made his billionaire donors and allies even richer. He wined and dined with his Hollywood celebrity friends while the blacks who voted for him suffer record unemployment levels and poverty. The simple truth is the man is so disastrously incompetent and corrupt even you and most of his starry eyed supporters are starting to wake up and smell the coffee. And now you are just ashamed to admit you were wrong and the evil conservatives were right all along so you are just trying to put yourself at little bit of distance, play the "independent thinking man" card. But if push comes to shove, if he would run for President again you'd still vote for him despite the fact that you know everybody in this country will have to suffer the consequences. You'd vote for him just because he is black. And a Democrat as a bonus. And if that is not racism, then I really don't know what racism is.

[rootuser]

Your argument is that the degree of individualism is on the rise here in the United States. But it is precisely because the degree of individualism is directly related to the degree of liberty that your argument is incorrect on that point.

I understand your point, I am just pointing out what some of the think tanks have said. The big swings in gay marriage point to massive changes in individual liberties, and the idea that the second amendment is clearly an individual right is also a massive shift in this direction. In terms of overarching supreme court decisions, there are many that are pushing the individualism nature. Even Citizens United in a way pushed that the collective corporation could act as an individual and had interests as an individual (to an extent). My argument is the sweeping changes have come from the Supreme Court the ones that change our stances on fast track movements.

But your point is well taken, the new laws in each state constantly are chipping away at our individualism. And the direction some of the think tanks believe we are headed is quite possibly not where we will end up, I agree with you. Good point.

Importantly, government enforced collectives most certainly do not offer any real choice, most especially with respect to whether or not to participate in those collectives. More precisely, the "choice", such as it is, is not based on whether or not one wishes to receive the benefits of being in the collective, but rather on whether or not one happens to be located within the geographic region controlled by the government in question.

That is true, no doubt about it. But you are assuming many of the collectives in Latino and Hispanic societies are government enforce, when in fact they are not. Some are, but most are not.

The think tanks in question fail to recognize the fact that nearly every law is a restriction upon liberty, and the rate of their passage vastly exceeds the rate at which they are abandoned, overturned, or repealed. ETA: And that doesn't even include the rate at which new regulations are imposed by regulatory agencies.

Agreed. It makes sense.

Most certainly. Nevertheless, the people in question do harken from places where most of the population is used to being controlled to an even greater degree than here, and it is normal to strive to make one's environment resemble, to some degree, that which one is used to. Even if there are specific things those people were attempting to escape, the plain fact is that they almost certainly were not attempting to escape their entire way of life. Were that the case, we'd see much greater effort on their part to abandon their culture and way of doing things (most especially as regards the passage of laws), rather than to preserve it.

This has been the case since our founding. The founding fathers brought over a lot of the ways of Briton to the point of even wanting to appoint a king. I don't think there is any nationality that lives here that assimilated completely. Some take a pizza joint for granted, but get upset about the Taqueria for instance. Complete lunacy.

That doesn't mean those people are the cause of the direction the country is headed, only that they contribute to it.


Oh, I completely agree. But dumbing down Americans by labeling everything seems to be what politicians do in the general case. That has been true for quite some time now.

They contribute to it yes, each micro culture in its own way. But to assume a dose of collectivism is going to be the downfall of everything is to over-simply the problems we face. Using collectivism is just a definition to encompass as large a string of people as you can so you can marginalize them all at once. It is a the perfect politician tactic.

[Nopal]

I'm sorry kcbrown, but your assertion that people (hispanics) are MORE used to being controlled is bull***. You can't make the argument that any law is a restriction upon freedom (hence more control) and in the same breath say that a nation with such a huge number of laws such as the US has citizens that are used to less control than those coming form a nation where many of its laws are not even enforced!

In 1988 I would stroll through the streets of Cuernavaca (a major metropolis in Mexico) with a .22 slung over my shoulder on my way to my friend's house in the outskirts so we could go hunting. I used public transportation to get myself and my rifle around. This despite having firearms laws that are supposedly more restrictive than the US. In fact, a cop did stop me once, but only to ask me about the make and model of the rifle because his son had been wanting a .22. Granted, things have changed since the war on drugs was militarized, but you get my point.

I find it ironic that for many of the things you can do in Mexico, you must abide and watch out for many more laws to do something similar in the US (for example, a house could be built with a minimum of permits, a storefront can be opened in almost any neighborhood, public transportation is a field where any private individual can easily start a business in, where there are few "non-smoking" areas, etc.). Yes people do come to the US seeking freedom, but they come seeking opportunity more, because they are used to many freedoms that usually available where they come from and in some cases, less available in the US due to the US's high level of regulation.

Don't think that just because people are used to a culture with a stronger sense of community, they are somehow less free or more easily controlled? That is an erroneous assumption to make. If you want to see a good reason why Hispanics have been gravitating to the left (besides being shunned by the right), it's simply the language. Democrats/Liberals make an effort to communicate to the Hispanic community in Spanish, often through the use of Spanish-language radio and television networks. The right has never done such a thing. It's easy to get your point across when you're the only one being understood. That's not to say that Hispanics shouldn't learn English, but the truth is that even a good number of those that speak perfect English still prefer to communicate in Spanish half the time.

[Rickrock1]

Steer Hard Right.......

[Jimi Jah]

Congressonal Medal of Freedom winner Mario Oblido said, "if you don't like the hispanic influence, go back to Europe", forgetting Spain is also part of Europe.

Someone else said, "you better keep that Affirmative Action, you're gonna need it".

I want to file for disability, I can't speak Spanish.

[kcbrown]

I'm sorry kcbrown, but your assertion that people (hispanics) are MORE used to being controlled is bull***. You can't make the argument that any law is a restriction upon freedom (hence more control) and in the same breath say that a nation with such a huge number of laws such as the US has citizens that are used to less control than those coming form a nation where many of its laws are not even enforced!

I agree with the notion you speak of here, except with respect to two things:

• your implied assertion that an unenforced law is equivalent to the absence of that law. It's not.
• the implication that laws are the sole means by which control is exerted. It's not.

In the case of Mexico, the government is utterly corrupt, as are the entities which enforce its laws. Not only does this result in malevolent and selective enforcement of laws, it also results in the imposition of controls that were never encoded into law in the first place.


I completely agree with you that the United States is rather tightly controlled today through the imposition of countless laws and regulations, but I fully expect that the degree to which those laws are selectively enforced is less than that in Mexico. Further, the degree to which government entities assert arbitrary controls on the citizenry is, I expect, quite a lot less than in Mexico.

Now, it's possible that I'm incorrect about that, but if so, then it's because the United States has recently caught up with or surpassed Mexico in those respects. I'm deeply skeptical that people in Mexico are actually more free than they are in the United States, but I'm always open to that possibility.

In 1988 I would stroll through the streets of Cuernavaca (a major metropolis in Mexico) with a .22 slung over my shoulder on my way to my friend's house in the outskirts so we could go hunting. I used public transportation to get myself and my rifle around. This despite having firearms laws that are supposedly more restrictive than the US. In fact, a cop did stop me once, but only to ask me about the make and model of the rifle because his son had been wanting a .22. Granted, things have changed since the war on drugs was militarized, but you get my point.

Yes, things have changed, both there and here. But that you got away with violating the law due to its lack of enforcement does little to reduce the suffocating effect of the law being on the books in the first place.

Yes people do come to the US seeking freedom, but they come seeking opportunity more, because they are used to many freedoms that usually available where they come from and in some cases, less available in the US due to the US's high level of regulation.

Then why aren't they opposing the imposition of new laws upon them when they come here?

Don't think that just because people are used to a culture with a stronger sense of community, they are somehow less free or more easily controlled? That is an erroneous assumption to make.

I agree, and should make it plain that I do not equate sense of community with imposition of control. Even so, the correlation between community and control is there, as communities which impose no rules are nigh unto nonexistent.

[CCWFacts]

For all you who got angry at me for saying there is a genetic factor in political orientation, and therefore importing a million third worlders is going to permanently change our politics, the evidence keeps on piling up that I am right.

The findings, published in Current Biology, show that the brains of liberals and conservatives may indeed be wired differently — and shed light on the biological factors at play in political beliefs.

But many of the same subjects at issue in certain political ideologies – attitudes toward sex, family, education and personal autonomy, for example – have an emotional component as much as a logic-based one. And some research has indicated that political leanings can be inherited (much in the same way that height can inherited but modified, affected by a number of factors from nutrition to the environment).

The difference between the two groups was stark in spite of the fact that, oddly enough, these neural responses didn’t match the conscious ratings that participants gave those pictures.

source

Third world voters are not going to assimialte and start "voting white" (ie, GOP). Not in 100 years. Probably not in 1,000 years. The Democrats know this, which is why it's so urgent for Obama to grant some form of residence to millions of non-white poor Hispanics. The Democrats score > 95% of the black vote without expending any effort, and they know they can achieve similar results with millions of poor non-white Hispanics.

[ja308]

You're wrong. Blacks were ready to give up on him. However, if he's attacked for no reason we were going to stand with him. The attacks against him were attacks we've been hearing for years.

That's the irony of it all. We were ready boot him until it seems like he was being attacked unfairly.

The other piece of it is. You can't say nasty stuff about a group or not actively campaign for their votes and expect them to vote for you.

Rand Paul is actually trying to reach out to African Americans.

Let's not act like it's only blacks that like free stuff. My father in-law is white, start talking about getting rid of Social Security he's not trying to hear that. He is a registered Republican that has vote democrat the last couple year. He want's his free stuff just like everybody else.

Social Security is not supposed to be free stuff. Recipients paid into it for the most part .
Incidentally the GOP has never threatened social security.


The big lie was when W Bush proposed recent payees could opt for 1 or 2% of the contribution to be put into a special brokerage account that would belong to the employee and his/her family when the wage earner died .
It was a great idea, but the democrat media machine demonized it and the idea was dropped .

[During my 2005 trip] to a Nissan auto plant in Mississippi, many in the audience were African American workers. I asked how many had money invested in a 401(k). Almost every hand in the room shot up. I loved the idea of people who had not traditionally owned assets having a nest egg they could call their own. I also thought about how much more was possible. Social Security was especially unfair to African Americans. Because their life expectancy was shorter, black workers received an average of $21,000 less in benefits than whites of comparable income levels. Personal accounts, which could be passed along to the next generation, would go a long way toward reducing that disparity.
Democratic leaders alleged I wanted to "privatize" Social Security. That was obviously poll-tested language designed to scare people. It wasn't true. My plan saved Social Security, modernized Social Security, and gave Americans the opportunity to own a piece of their Social Security. It did not privatize Social Security.
Source: Decision Points, by Pres. George W. Bush, p.298-299 , Nov 9, 2010

http://www.ontheissues.org/Celeb/George_W__Bush_Social_Security.htm

add this to another reason we are screwed !

[Nopal]

I agree with the notion you speak of here, except with respect to two things:

• your implied assertion that an unenforced law is equivalent to the absence of that law. It's not.
• the implication that laws are the sole means by which control is exerted. It's not.

In the case of Mexico, the government is utterly corrupt, as are the entities which enforce its laws. Not only does this result in malevolent and selective enforcement of laws, it also results in the imposition of controls that were never encoded into law in the first place.

Agreed. But because many laws tend to be enforced selectively, there are often ways around them. Unfortunately that means rampant corruption and bribery. It also means a population that is less likely to be controlled by laws.

I completely agree with you that the United States is rather tightly controlled today through the imposition of countless laws and regulations, but I fully expect that the degree to which those laws are selectively enforced is less than that in Mexico. Further, the degree to which government entities assert arbitrary controls on the citizenry is, I expect, quite a lot less than in Mexico.

That is probably correct, but that doesn't add to or detract from your argument that Mexico's population is more used to being controlled.

Now, it's possible that I'm incorrect about that, but if so, then it's because the United States has recently caught up with or surpassed Mexico in those respects. I'm deeply skeptical that people in Mexico are actually more free than they are in the United States, but I'm always open to that possibility.

I don't know about the last decade or so, but I've lived there long enough to know that has been in fact the case for a long time: Whether the laws are being selectively enforced or not, the mere disparity in their number (many more laws/regulations here in the US) means there is simply a little less freedom. Now, that is most likely not the case with RKBA laws, but it is in many other respects.

Then why aren't they opposing the imposition of new laws upon them when they come here?

I think that's the wrong question to ask because it assumes that they don't oppose new laws. I see it as more of a passive opposition: If the law goes against your principles of freedom, it's simply not taken too seriously (that is sort of both the blessing and the curse of the way many Hispanics view laws).

I agree, and should make it plain that I do not equate sense of community with imposition of control. Even so, the correlation between community and control is there, as communities which impose no rules are nigh unto nonexistent.

If there is a correlation, it's weak at best. But there is even less there to argue causation (as you've implicitly stated by saying that because the culture is more focused on community, the people are more easily controlled).