General discussion
-
CreatorTopic
-
November 5, 2008 at 11:48 am #2160935
Election demographics
Lockedby oz_media · about 15 years, 4 months ago
Just a passing thought really.
It seems to be common that coastal states vote for the Democratic party. I see a couple of demographic reasons for this, while just speculation I think there’s some validity in it.
Actors, musicians, artists and other people who make creativity their lives seem to vote for democratic parties, perhaps due to their more spatial minds, perhaps due to their knowledge of the world (travelling actors and musicians for example)and perhaps many simply becaus ethey are more in tune emotionally and are easily sold on the emotional side of teh campaigns.
However I also thought of another reason last night while looking at the blue coast of America.
These people all live in on near port cities. Obviously they would have more contact with people from around the world and more awareness that people are just people regardless of origin.
I am not saying people in central US states don’t get out, but I think there is a geater ‘world’ exposure to those living in or near major travel and shipping ports.
Does this exposure to the world’s people actually make oe more aware and in tune with foreigners, making them less alien and more ‘normal’ to the coasties?
It is similar in Canada too, those on or near teh cost have USUALLY favoured the democrats, as they are the bleeding hearts and tree huggers of the country. But even though we have not elected NDP for some time now, Vancouver Island is predominantly democratic as is the East coast of Canada. So there are som similarities, even though in Canada the democrats are much less favoured across the board than in the USA.
Hmmmmmm, just a passing thought.
Topic is locked -
CreatorTopic
All Comments
-
AuthorReplies
-
-
November 5, 2008 at 12:13 pm #2794708
Having heard from the left coast…..
by jamesrl · about 15 years, 4 months ago
In reply to Election demographics
….So did you even look at the election results across the country for Canada?
Toronto elected NOT A SINGLE CONSERVATIVE. Toronto has its fair share of tree huggers. It is a port, but like Chicago, an insland port. But we get most of the immigration into Canada.
By the way, below the Mason Dixon there are a number of coastal states that went Republican and if you consider the Gulf of Mexico, Texas, Lousiana, Georgie, South Carolina, all solidly Republican.
James
James
-
November 5, 2008 at 1:18 pm #2794678
Aren’t they always though
by oz_media · about 15 years, 4 months ago
In reply to Having heard from the left coast…..
I figrued those states were mainly republican and always have been, though i am sure with som evariation over the years.
But look at the coasts, Pacific and Altantic, especially northeast, I think these are more common tourist ports and thus the people living in those areas get a greater exposure.
Again it was just a thought but the colours sure lay out a costal democratic favour.
-
-
November 5, 2008 at 12:34 pm #2794700
Admint It
by the scummy one · about 15 years, 4 months ago
In reply to Election demographics
you were bored and just wanted to start a discussion!
:^0Or,
you have been smoking/drinking something :0-
November 5, 2008 at 12:40 pm #2794696
-
November 5, 2008 at 1:33 pm #2794672
Seriously
by oz_media · about 15 years, 4 months ago
In reply to Admint It
It’s something I heard about years ago, artists etc. have more left leaning tendencies, they share a more emotional and ‘united world’ mentality. I dismissed it during the bush election though becaus ethat was just a farce from the capaigns to teh votes, the whole thing was a kaibosh, kinda like Bush’s 8 years at the helm.
Don’t tell the crew to patch the hole in the hull, have them poke thei rifngers in it and see if it gets bigger. Meanwhile just get the passengers running for the lifeboats as if its a drill and keep the sinking ship issue quiet.
This was my point:
http://www-personal.umich.edu/~mejn/election/2008/statemapredbluer1024.pngMost coastal, major port cities seem to have been blue, I think that’s the dems, right? Even around the great lakes, which have more exposure to tourism, Canadians, foreign shipping etc.!
Whereas the central and southern states are all red.
I smoke cigars only, I drink Scotch and that’s a dead give away at work so I have to wait for my dram a wee bit after.
-
-
November 5, 2008 at 12:38 pm #2794697
[i]Actors, musicians, artists [/i]
by boxfiddler · about 15 years, 4 months ago
In reply to Election demographics
[i]and other people who make creativity their lives seem to vote for democratic parties, perhaps due to their more spatial minds…[/i]
Perhaps due to the fact that Democrats give them more money than do Republicans. 😀
-
November 5, 2008 at 12:48 pm #2794692
Big issue in our recent Canadian election
by jamesrl · about 15 years, 4 months ago
In reply to [i]Actors, musicians, artists [/i]
The conservative government had made some changes to arts funding just before the election. In reality the total arts funding had gone up by 8% but some programs got bigger increases, others got cuts.
Some of the cuts went to bigger more visible programs, and the arts community went ballistic. When a reporter asked the Prime Minister said something to the effect of not thinking average Canadians appreciated big galas and well to do artists.
It caused a loss of several seats in Quebec – became a major issue, may have cost the conservatives a majority.
James
James
-
November 5, 2008 at 1:22 pm #2794674
Huh
by oz_media · about 15 years, 4 months ago
In reply to [i]Actors, musicians, artists [/i]
Republicans don’t buy movie tickets, music, art etc? They don’t go to concerts, buy t-shirts, read fictional books etc. like everyone else?
Waddayano?
-
November 5, 2008 at 1:59 pm #2794660
Missed her point
by jdclyde · about 15 years, 4 months ago
In reply to Huh
Republicans don’t believe every artsy fartsy endeavor should be paid for with tax dollars.
Charge admission and make it pay for it’s self.
It should have been illegal for “dung Jesus” to get one cent of government funding, but it was anti-religion, so libs ate it up.
Bottom line:
Dems seem to think that “The Government” should be sponsoring every “arts” program, and are quick to throw money around.Reps seem to think that people that enjoy art galleries should pay to go to them, as well as any other art function.
When is the last time the Canadian government paid for a concert? They don’t, and we shouldn’t either. Like you said, that is what ticket sales are for.
-
November 5, 2008 at 2:58 pm #2794639
I know what her point was, I simply ignored it
by oz_media · about 15 years, 4 months ago
In reply to Missed her point
As her point is more focused towards, as you say, ‘artsy fartsy types’. I was peaking of musicians, celebrities, writers etc. who have already suceeded in their endeavors, not those seekign government handouts to buy a new easel and a trip to Balize to paint landscapes. We get them too and that’s not who I was referring to.
We have an issue with canadian content.
If you want to make it in Canada, you just play Canadian content and the government will qipe your a$$ for you.
I am referring to a “mentality” of the somewhat wealthy or successful people in the arts, not situational benefits for amateurs.
thus I will also not address your comments long those lines either.
P.S. The Canadian government funds tours all teh time, they fund the Jazz festival which used to have cigarrette sponsorship before that was illegal. They fund studio time, touring, concerts etc. But you have to play Canadian content and that’s as far as ou’ll get. People who want to go beyond that, need to fund themselves, find a label or deal from someone else and go for broke.
Remember I work in that industry and I shop bands for deals outside of the crap we are force fed in North America.
-
-
-
November 5, 2008 at 2:00 pm #2794659
That is a problem
by jdclyde · about 15 years, 4 months ago
In reply to Election demographics
people that feel instead of think. Bingo.
-
November 5, 2008 at 3:07 pm #2794635
An emotional campaign from BOTH sides.
by oz_media · about 15 years, 4 months ago
In reply to That is a problem
Of course it was the emotional campaign thsi time. Hhe hardass campaigns that Bush ran were disgusting and people realized it, though after the fact,
You cant go playing all righteous because your choice didn’t win. We ALL know you don’t like Obama and think its the end of the world, you have been rather clear in your distaste for hi malready.
The ONLY person I didn’ tse etryign to play teh enotion card was Biden. McCain did it in spades, Palin well she’s just a rootin tootin hockey mom with no G’s in her vocabulary.
Give me a break. She was teh BIG “look how emotional and caring we are, just like the left”, card for the repubilcan campaign.
I prmoise you that a great deal of McCain votes were purely because people bought into Palin’s emotional web.
Even Mccain played the role of a man, well experienced, kind and smiling, just like yer good old grand pappy does. Knowing the voters were younger and more globally aware today than 8 years ago, they HAd to play that card and it worked for both parties equally. Obama just did a beter job of selling the Joe Politician spiel than Mccain and Palin did. Palin made McCain look too left though, his reaching across teh table comments were valid and effective, her hockey mom crap was just BS and nobody bought ito it after hearing it repeated so often.
-
November 5, 2008 at 8:56 pm #2794553
I honestly don’t believe
by jdclyde · about 15 years, 4 months ago
In reply to An emotional campaign from BOTH sides.
that biden/palin made any difference.
the people that voted for obama knew they would from the moment clinton got thrown out on her a$$.
If you look back at the polls, obamas numbers didn’t change much, it was mccains numbers going up and down, but more down.
Mccain had to many issues, that made him unwinable. carbon credits and immigration were two things that took him off the table for me.
has anyone looked at mccains total numbers vs bush’s total numbers last time around?
-
-
-
November 5, 2008 at 2:59 pm #2794638
-
November 5, 2008 at 3:14 pm #2794633
LOL, Palin: It’s kind of like she never happened.
by oz_media · about 15 years, 4 months ago
In reply to Reminds me of this:
That was a headline on the same page, if only. Perhaps the GOP would have had a fighting chance. With her trying to be a Republocrat, it just left no difference in parties other than some little old guy with a young hockey mom vs a black man with a starched, aging senator at his side.
No hope in hell for McCain under such conditions, too bad, he’s a great guy and I am confident that he will alwaye be a faithful and upstanding American, the world needs more people like him in the mix.
The Labrador (McCain) vs the PitBull (Obama).
-
November 5, 2008 at 3:34 pm #2794629
Palin killed McCain
by jmgarvin · about 15 years, 4 months ago
In reply to LOL, Palin: It’s kind of like she never happened.
McCain should have fired all his advisers because they screwed him. Palin was a HORRIBLE choice for him. She spoke poorly, she was ignorant, and she couldn’t even debate Biden without acting like an 18 year old beauty queen (the winking was creepy as hell). He should never have gone so negative. He should never have suspended his campaign.
He shouldn’t have done a lot of things, but his advisers told him to do a laundry list of stupid things that lost him the election.
-
November 5, 2008 at 4:08 pm #2794621
Exactly
by oz_media · about 15 years, 4 months ago
In reply to Palin killed McCain
I think so too and McCain could have won with just about ANYBODY but Palin at his side. I’d have even won it with him for god’s sake!
-
November 5, 2008 at 4:15 pm #2794619
After the election last night
by the scummy one · about 15 years, 4 months ago
In reply to Palin killed McCain
they had some guy representing the party. He was stating that Palin was the future of the party, and that nobody knew her well enough to understand.
my thoughts were, ‘is she already announcing to run in 4 yrs? But apparently the reporter asked that question, and there was a ‘no comment’, however, Palin is the future of the republican party, for however she chooses to go.I am betting the republicans are making a move away from winning from now on???
-
November 5, 2008 at 4:26 pm #2794617
If she’s the future, then the Liberterians better step it up…
by jmgarvin · about 15 years, 4 months ago
In reply to After the election last night
Perhaps we’ll have a viable third party after all???
-
November 5, 2008 at 5:07 pm #2794611
I’m glad someone else mentioned the winking.
by ontheropes · about 15 years, 4 months ago
In reply to Palin killed McCain
She totally lost me when she did that. Only my wife can get away with winking at me. Seriously, WTF?
-
November 5, 2008 at 5:44 pm #2794602
I didn’t like the winking either
by av . · about 15 years, 4 months ago
In reply to Palin killed McCain
I think Sarah Palin is a very accomplished woman as Governor of Alaska, but she was ill-prepared for the scrutiny of the campaign. I think she was thrust into the spotlight and she did energize the base of the Republican party, but she failed to attract new voters.
I don’t think the media was fair to her at all. She was a newbie, not being a Washington insider, and they were not kind. Still, she has a record of accomplishment and could be a future contender if she adopts a more serious demeanor.
John McCain’s campaign was terrible, in my opinion. I agree that he was too negative. He should have trumpeted his many accomplishments instead and I don’t understand why he didn’t.
Still, I don’t think that would have won him the election against someone as charismatic as Obama anyway. People wanted change and Obama represented that. McCain represented the past.
AV
-
November 6, 2008 at 6:36 pm #2964963
All great points
by oz_media · about 15 years, 4 months ago
In reply to I didn’t like the winking either
McCain actually touched on being different than the Joe Republican(sorry) of the past. I think that alone had a lot of people feeling confident in McCain, knowing he’d look “across the table” and seek a more centered position, as he has done in the past.
So given that, if HE had campaigned on ‘Change’ and bringing new ideas to the table, would he have won more votes?
I for one have opposed almost everything Republicans have stood for over the last 8 years. However I really grew to like McCain and grew confident in his intent and ability; so much so that, if I were American, I think I would have voted for him too.
Perhaps if he had been allowed to really push his ideas of Republicans doing something different, other than that stupid ‘mavrick’ shite, he would be in the White House in January.
How much of his campaign did he have control over?
I think, shoulld he have had more rope, he would have [i]almost[/i] campaigned against the republican party as offering something new from something old (no pun intended). -
November 8, 2008 at 3:07 pm #2966415
I don’t think he could have been the change candidate
by av . · about 15 years, 4 months ago
In reply to All great points
No matter what he did, he was seen as a Bush Republican. Of course, everyday we heard how he voted with Bush 90% of the time from the Dems.
I think he had it right by saying he was a reformer, but his campaign was awful. It was negative and ill-run. If he really wanted to be a “maverick”, he would have picked Joe Lieberman, even if he is pro-choice and the conservatives don’t like it.
Joe Lieberman was supposedly McCain’s first choice for VP, not Sarah Palin. He might have attracted new voters to the party by doing that. Maybe even the Hillary disenfranchised voters. I think many of the conservative base would have eventually held their nose and voted McCain/Lieberman in the end.
I don’t know how much control he had over his own campaign, but early on he said he wouldn’t run a negative campaign and then proceeded to do just that. That is just so not his style.
No one wanted to hear that. We went through that with Bush/Kerry in 2004. Its the old Republican playbook. Our country is in such bad shape now and we need answers, not the same old political games.
Thats part of why Obama won. The other part is that he is very charismatic and will be the first (half) black President. That, in itself, has somewhat eliminated the race issue in this country. Finally, here is proof – anyone can be President. It was very emotional for many people here.
I think Obama will definitely improve our relations around the world. He inspires people. He is such a welcome change from Bush.
AV
-
November 8, 2008 at 5:06 pm #2966384
The next question
by jdclyde · about 15 years, 4 months ago
In reply to I don’t think he could have been the change candidate
will the world improve their relations with us?
-
November 9, 2008 at 3:13 pm #2967229
Yes
by av . · about 15 years, 4 months ago
In reply to I don’t think he could have been the change candidate
Simply because Bush is gone. It would have happened even if McCain had won, but more so with Obama. Obama has great charisma. Other countries will be more willing to work with him.
If you remember back in 2004 when Bush got re-elected, the world wasn’t all that happy.
The page has now turned and other countries likely consider a new president as a new opportunity for better relations with the US.Obama has a tough road ahead and I hope he is up to the challenge. Joe Biden’s comments about Obama being untested definitely bother me.
AV
-
November 9, 2008 at 3:52 pm #2967218
Have you seen the talk about executive orders?
by jdclyde · about 15 years, 4 months ago
In reply to I don’t think he could have been the change candidate
Not even been a week, and he is already talking about using executive orders to block gas and oil drilling.
Bet the Saudies will love him. What other country is dumb enough to make themselves intentionally dependent upon hostile nations?
-
November 11, 2008 at 6:04 pm #2967321
I’ve read about the executive orders
by av . · about 15 years, 4 months ago
In reply to I don’t think he could have been the change candidate
I don’t think we’ll be doing any domestic drilling anytime soon. Thats too bad for us, because the low oil prices we have now aren’t going to last forever and we don’t have a viable alternative fuel.
Looks like Obama will make alot of immediate changes when he takes office. Most interesting will be how the Dems will save the auto industry and whether we’ll end up bailing out their pension and benefit obligations in the process. Will we save the unions too?
I need a drink.
AV
-
November 11, 2008 at 7:16 pm #2967307
It is stupid and irresponsible
by jdclyde · about 15 years, 4 months ago
In reply to I don’t think he could have been the change candidate
of Obama to intentionally drive up energy costs when the economy is tanking, auto dealers are tanking, and he is pretending to care about the little guy.
Who does he think gets hurt the most when energy skyrockets?
-
November 12, 2008 at 5:26 pm #2966729
We should be drilling right now
by av . · about 15 years, 4 months ago
In reply to I don’t think he could have been the change candidate
We can still look at alternative fuels too, but right now, oil is the most viable. I think most people are ok with domestic drilling after what we’ve gone through with skyrocketing energy prices. I don’t understand why Obama doesn’t see that.
I just saw on TV tonite that even though oil prices are dropping, home heating oil hasn’t been dropping as quickly as gas prices. I couldn’t wait any longer, so it cost me a whopping $730 for 200 gallons of oil. That was about 2 weeks ago and it isn’t even winter yet.
AV
-
November 12, 2008 at 5:41 pm #2966726
Obama to intentionally drive up energy costs when the economy is tanking
by oz_media · about 15 years, 4 months ago
In reply to I don’t think he could have been the change candidate
And just look how he has taken america to war! Why would anyoen send America to war in such dire situations?
Oh, right that was Bush.
Did Obama stop drilling for oil in ANWR? Too bad, I know you guys had been seeing great returns form that explorartion, actually that’s a lie, it is going to take 10-12 years to see oil from ANWR. Hmmm, perhaps Obama is seeking something more immediate or assured (They stil don’t think ANWR will offer yuo enough oil to make enough of a difference), who knows, but its not like he STOPPED anything that was already underway, as your post infers.
I actually was for McCain on national policy, but Obama for foreign policy, but then started to see benefit in McCain too but not the same opportunity that Obama SHOULD have with firegn policy, I think he’ll have a better reception by Arab nations, yet will need Biden to make sure they don’t just walk on him.
I do think his ‘nice guy’ charisma is only so thick though, puchovers and laydowns don’t make it to president, in order to be any sort of politicians takes some mighty testicular fortitude (maybe that’s why Palin was such an easily discounted loser).
-
November 12, 2008 at 8:29 pm #2966677
Oh, I am sure the Arab nations will just love him
by jdclyde · about 15 years, 4 months ago
In reply to I don’t think he could have been the change candidate
Not that it will translate to anything good for us.
-
November 13, 2008 at 5:14 pm #2982804
Don’t you feel sorry for OPEC, JD?
by av . · about 15 years, 4 months ago
In reply to I don’t think he could have been the change candidate
Oil prices drop everyday even though they cut production. If theres a silver lining to this recession, its that they’re now feeling the pain too.
Lets see how Obama plans to tackle our energy crisis if it isn’t by drilling. Do you have your tire pressure gauge ready?
AV
-
November 14, 2008 at 6:26 am #2982645
Already did the tuneup
by jdclyde · about 15 years, 4 months ago
In reply to I don’t think he could have been the change candidate
so looks like I am out of options, huh?
-
November 14, 2008 at 8:55 pm #2981981
I still can’t stop thinking about this
by av . · about 15 years, 4 months ago
In reply to I don’t think he could have been the change candidate
http://www.chevrolet.com/electriccar/ and whether Obama can find a way to make this more viable than drilling for oil.
AV
-
November 5, 2008 at 6:33 pm #2794587
The choice of Palin
by jamesrl · about 15 years, 4 months ago
In reply to Palin killed McCain
As I said after her nomination, you use your VP pick to “balance the ticket”.
Obama chose an older experienced senator to balance off youth and less experience. McCain chose someone younger, more energetic and most importantly, someone who the socially conservative parts of the Republican party would support and come out to fight for. He got what he needed. He might have been hoping for a benefit of picking up some disgruntled moderates who had supported Hillary.
I was not her biggest fan having heard her in multiple interviews. But she delivered those in the party who migth have been tempted to stay home – those who did not support the more “maverick” McCain who ran against Bush in 2000.
James
-
-
-
November 5, 2008 at 5:14 pm #2794608
I think thats true about artists and musicians
by av . · about 15 years, 4 months ago
In reply to Election demographics
They are definitely more liberal and Democratic leaning. They are right-brained thinkers.
I’ve lived in blue New Jersey all of my life and would have to say the reason Democrats thrive here is because of the tremendous diversity that exists in our cities today. If you live here, you accept that people from every country in the world also live here, along with their cultures and languages. They vote too, they’re not just visitors.
Their presence is not all good and alot of these people depend on public assistance programs to exist. The Democrats always provide that, but Republicans don’t, so we are forever a blue state. Somehow, Republicans are always outnumbered vote-wise.
When I grew up in the 60’s, it was almost entirely white European and black people in NJ.
The cities are Democratic, but the suburbs and more rural areas are Republican. There aren’t enough Republicans in this state to ever turn it red, though.
I think that people in the central US have never seen how the needs of society change when you have a diverse population like what exists in a coastal state like NJ. They’re lucky.
With unmanaged immigration and Democrats in charge, you’re paying extra taxes to support programs for people that decide to settle here and live off the government.
AV
-
November 12, 2008 at 5:54 pm #2966724
Its only slightly different here
by oz_media · about 15 years, 4 months ago
In reply to I think thats true about artists and musicians
I live on teh west coast of Canada, often referred to as the left coast even though we haven’t supported a democratic government in a long time. But you also have ot look at other countries that have had LONG TIME support programs and those countries are usually economically strong and well established too, despte recessions that effect the entire world of course, UK, Canada, Germany, France etc.
In Canada we have immigration that woul dmake your head spin, in fact in a suburb of Vancouver, caucasians are officially no longer the majority, Oriental immihgrants have literally taken over as a 60+% strong majority. That’s not including all the other minorities too, Cauccasions make up a small part of what used ot be a mainly caucasian city.
In Vancouver, where the race isn’t mixed it is very ethnic in specifc areas, China Town (there are now three of them), Little India (grown also), Little Italy, etc. We have these ethinc ‘zones’ where everything is ethnic, you can’t even read the signs on stores in many of them, no English at all.
We are a very milticultural nation, encouraging imigrants to retain their culture and not assimilate Canadian culture.
But while they begin on government support programs, they are usually teh only ones eager to train and get Canadian jobs. Chinese and Japanes immigrants have a long timem history in Vancouver, even though we rounded them all up and put them in camps during the war, when even Canadian born Chinese were forced from therir homes and rounded up in a camp which is now the site of our Pacific National Exhibition, most people not realizing the crap we pilled 60 years ago on the same turf.
Anyway, I think the difference is, while there are many who just live on support (just as with any other race here, including native Canadians which are a HUGE portion of that system) the majority are here to become hard working citizens.
Teh tide is turning, we have a lot of Oriental immigrants now that will come with their heaps of money (which Canada welcomes of course) but they open stores within their own neighbourhood and conduct busienss between themselves and overseas. I can walk in a store and get served, but not very well.
-
November 13, 2008 at 5:42 pm #2982791
I had no idea you were so diversified in Canada
by av . · about 15 years, 4 months ago
In reply to Its only slightly different here
I never thought Canada had so much diversity. Is it legal immigration or do you have illegals, like we do in the US, living off the government subsidies?
We do have neighborhoods that are Black, Hispanic, Chinese, Indian, Greek, etc., but the cities are a big melting pot in NJ and people from everywhere in the world live and work together. Legal and illegal.
I think the immigration here is just a little too much in the cities. It makes you wonder what country you’re in. I don’t like the illegals at all. They’re just living off of everyone that works hard for a living.
AV
-
November 14, 2008 at 7:15 am #2982627
Legal for the most part
by jamesrl · about 15 years, 4 months ago
In reply to I had no idea you were so diversified in Canada
Toronto was declared by the United Nations. Vancouver is similar.
We don’t share a border with a country like Mexico, so we don’t have “easy” illegal immigration. We have had illegals coming in by ship in the past though.
Our immigration policies are based on either family connections or economic impacts – we have a points system that I know some democrats were studying. If you are an entrepreneur with $100,000, experience in a business that would work in Canada, and you speak English or French, you are pretty much guarenteed a place.
The issue we have is with false refugee claimants. For example, for years we had Portuguese people claim they were Jehovah’s Witnesses and persecuted in their homeland claim refugee status. It can take years to go through the appeals.
The other issue has been concentration. Toronto(the city not the region) has about 10% of the country’s population but gets about 75% of the immigrants. Thats now changing a bit – other provinces with lots of resource based jobs are now attracting a bigger percentage of new immigrants.
James
-
November 14, 2008 at 9:28 am #2982566
Look at all the floaters a couple of years back
by oz_media · about 15 years, 4 months ago
In reply to Legal for the most part
CFB Esquimault was overflowing with ‘floaters’ (those who jump ship and swim to shore in a refugee frenzy)a couple of years ago. We actually ended up deporting most of them back again after denyign their refugee status.
Immigration here s for money, as James mentioned. In teh 90’s our Premier opened up teh flood gates to encourage Asian immigration (much money!). As a result, they all headed to ‘the tongue of the dragon’ (Richmond). On a map it looks like the tongue of the dragon’s mouth, very prosperous in their culture. By floodgates, I mean over 300,000 immmigrants to ONE city in a little over a year PHEW!!! (just don’t try to drive anywhere in Richmond)
See: http://www.bcadventure.com/adventure/explore/vancouver/fraser_valley.htmlVancouver, Burnaby, New West is the upper jaw/nose, Ladner/Delta is the lower jaw and Richmond is the tongue; representing good luck, prosperity etc.
Here’s a really good read for you, MS looking to move operations to Canada to work around the US Visa blocks.
http://thetyee.ca/News/2007/11/07/MSWord/
Make sure you read the paragraphs titled Canada’s Welcome Mat.
I must agree that it does get a bit too much sometimes, the level of customer service is in the toilet, quality of manufactured goods is lower, number of English speaking staff and customer service personelle has been reduced etc. But that’s the price you pay for global awareness and cultural acceptance I guess.
-
November 15, 2008 at 2:02 pm #2981892
I wonder
by puppybreath · about 15 years, 4 months ago
In reply to Look at all the floaters a couple of years back
how many of the people in Richmond who had their lives turned upside down by the influx of 300,000 immigrants in a year thought that the price was too high. Are there any numbers available on how many people moved away when the influx started?
-
November 17, 2008 at 10:17 am #2981723
That’s an excellent comment!
by oz_media · about 15 years, 4 months ago
In reply to I wonder
I moved, for one, most of my friends moved too.
With changes in the US/Canadian fisheries, allowing US ships to fish in Canadian waters and get prime openings to ensure their success, most of the OLD south Richmond was lost instantly, closing down Canadian Fisheries and sending thousands to unemployment or early retirement in th epoor house. People had millions invested in their livlihood, only to see new regulations, overtaxing and a constantly fallign price for fish (sales to the US lost value to near nothing) I see that as being related also because Richmond saw the potential of all the money coming in and decided that fishing, as much a part of Richmond as Starbucks is to Seattle, was no longer their preference, more money could be obtained through immigrants and selling openings to US fisheries instead.
People are STILL moving out of Richmond, one by one. The city is barely recognizable anymore, the people are all packing up and leaving it to the immigrants now.
People in Richmond are used to a small town with a lot of cottage industry, owner operators of boats, private charter flight service to the island and interior etc.
They are now all fleeing the Lower Mainland (which encompasses Vancouver, and the surrounding suburbs) in droves to relocate to BC’s interios towns, Kelowna, Vernon, and points beyond. Where they are less populated, offer more opportunity for employment, kids can play hockey in the street etc.
An actual stat? Wouldn’t know where to begin looking. The population of Richmond has increased a great deal, regardless of those who leave, but that is simply a great Asian influx which outweighs those fleeing the city.
Great question though!
-
November 14, 2008 at 9:09 am #2982574
Time for my melting pot speech again, I suppose.
by oz_media · about 15 years, 4 months ago
In reply to I had no idea you were so diversified in Canada
Many people see America as multicultural, when it isn’t at all. They don’t realize just how multicultural Canada is though.
Differences:
[b][u]Melting pot[/b][/u], allows immigration, often grudgingly, and expects those immigrants to become “average citizens”. In America, you gaet a lot of immigrants but you also expect them to become ‘Americanized’ if they don’t speak teh language, follow your religions and cultural customs they are nto welcome.
[u][b]Multi-cultural[/u][/b] Welcomes immmigrants, allows them to retain their culture and beliefs, encourages others to accept and learn about the diverse cultural differences.
Canada is VERY multi-cultural, in elementary and high school there is an incredible mix of people from different nations, in many major Canadian cities, caucasian ‘Canadians’ are often a minority when compared to the number of immigrants that occupy the city.
As a result, people in Canada are seen as left leaning to others (in general)because we understand more about cultural diversification and have also learned not to fear it. We accept and encourage difference, that’s why it is so hard for use to simply say, bomb the carpet baggers’ or all Muslims are evil. We live and breath among them every day and interact with various races on a daily basis.
My current job as a BDM entails visiting with clients a lot, with more than 65% of our client base being Indian (Pakistani, East Indian etc.)a lot of my tie is spent visiting them at home, as many run home based business. I have learned many cultural traditions and actually find them very interesting, very united and very open minded and warm. A completely different scenario than one would get without such exposure. It removes a lot of the racism that is fed upon us each day, mixed race exposure is so important for our children.In fact my first ‘best friend’ when I moved to Canada was from Fiji with a verytraditional family. As a young kid into music, and with his father playing in a band, I sampled and learned how ot play various Indian instruments, that exposure to teh world around us, right on my own street, is absoluutely imperative, in my mind.
Anyway, that discussion is endless, and as much as I get so frustrated with Asian drivers (they have shut down our local DMV 3X for SELLING licences to them) I still understand that this ethic diversity is really what makes Canada sucha great place that is respected worldwide for having open arms and warm hearts.
Yup, I still love living here, no matter how much I miss living in the UK.
-
-
-
November 12, 2008 at 6:30 am #2967775
Yes, it really is that simple.
by tonythetiger · about 15 years, 4 months ago
In reply to Election demographics
[i]It seems to be common that coastal states vote for the Democratic party.[/i]
Collectivists vs. individualists.
What they want from the government is different, so they vote differently. This is seen even in largely rural states.
http://tinyurl.com/6rlx3q (Clicking on a state shows the counties in that state.)
-
November 12, 2008 at 5:58 pm #2966722
Everything always is with you
by oz_media · about 15 years, 4 months ago
In reply to Yes, it really is that simple.
It’s simple, collectivists (I assume people with more exposureto people around the world) vs individualists (those who have never left the swamp with their coon dawgs)
“OOOOH, Yeeeeah, Aaaaawchie!”
I’m gonna lobby to have your alias changed to Archie Bunker I think.
-
November 12, 2008 at 8:33 pm #2966675
People that grew up working for what they got
by jdclyde · about 15 years, 4 months ago
In reply to Everything always is with you
instead of expecting government to take care of things for them.
-
November 13, 2008 at 12:47 am #2966629
Slow down there….
by jmgarvin · about 15 years, 4 months ago
In reply to People that grew up working for what they got
The implication is that the east or west
coasters don’t work for anything and it’s all
handed to them.That couldn’t be further from the truth for
the majority of them. Let’s not forget if
you look at electoral maps it’s more purple
than red or blue. -
November 13, 2008 at 9:40 am #2966093
No way
by oz_media · about 15 years, 4 months ago
In reply to Slow down there….
It’s just liberal weenies on the coasts, they don’t work they don’t pay taxes. However judging by the people living in California and New York, there are probably much higher incomes and more taxes paid by many of them than there is in others parts of America. But that doesn’t suport the Liberal weenie argument so we can’t talk abotu that too much.
Face it, central America has it all figured out, people on the coast with greater global exposure don’t contribute to America. How dare they care about others and not simply their own little lives, how dare they open their eyes to the world and not just see it as the sole land mass of Americam and those two other little countries, Mexico and Canada.
-
November 14, 2008 at 6:39 am #2982641
Looking at what Obama was promising
by jdclyde · about 15 years, 4 months ago
In reply to Slow down there….
It was all what government will do for the people, not about how government removes obstacles so you can go out and be a success based upon your abilities and efforts.
It was about “Change”, and what he is going to GIVE to the people.
“Ask not what your country can do for you….”. Dems have completely lost everything that speech stood for.
-
November 14, 2008 at 6:50 am #2982637
Might as well…
by jmgarvin · about 15 years, 4 months ago
In reply to Looking at what Obama was promising
Considering that Bush is giving hand outs to corporations, might as well put my hand out too…
-
November 14, 2008 at 3:50 pm #2982066
-
November 14, 2008 at 8:47 pm #2981982
No, just being cyncical
by jmgarvin · about 15 years, 4 months ago
In reply to Might as well…
It’s GOVERNMENT that’s the problem, not the D
or the R. McCain might have done a good job,
but Palin is wacky and corrupt. -
November 14, 2008 at 10:19 am #2982542
Id that really why he won?
by oz_media · about 15 years, 4 months ago
In reply to Looking at what Obama was promising
Do you really think he won simply because he said he would support more government funded programs? Or do you think Americans have had enough of the war and his (Obama’s) foreign policy and intent had far more impact than McCain saying, we have to stay the course (as if he had Bush’s hand in his back, operating his mouth).
I think this change of government had a lot more to do with the war than any internal policy changes or promises. Many people voted for Obama JUST because he was black, what makes you think there was a majority thinking “great, more handouts!”
You are simply focused on that because THAT is your distaste of the democratic party, you see all dems as wanting more government, whereas they may not want more government (as a majority) and were simply on the same page when it came to exiting Iraq and focusing on the real terrorists instead.
Bush lied to the country, he was proven a liar, and people don’t like that. Even with McCain’s great demeanor, he had no intent on changing the war, which is why I am sure a great deal of people chose to vote Obama.
You can always reduce it to simplicity by saying DEMS want freebee’s/more government and don’t want to be personally responsible, but that old drivel doesn’t stack up when war takes precedence to most.
Perhaps many Obama supporters accepted the fact that he would increase government control just so they can see him change the course of the war. Don’t be so simple.
-
November 14, 2008 at 10:32 am #2982534
The Robin Hood effect.
by tonythetiger · about 15 years, 4 months ago
In reply to Id that really why he won?
Both parties said they’d do it, Obama was better at communicating that he’d do it. Increase tax on corporations and the rich to give rebates to the middle and lower income people.
Problem is, people who paid NO income taxes don’t get the rebate, but they sure do get the price increases that result from increasing taxes on corporations!
-
November 14, 2008 at 10:58 am #2982175
Tony you can’t be serious?
by jmgarvin · about 15 years, 4 months ago
In reply to Id that really why he won?
In the past 8 years we’ve seen wages stagnate and prices skyrocket. You can’t tell me with a straight face that lower corporate taxes (ala Trickle Down Economics) are doing anything.
-
November 14, 2008 at 11:18 am #2982164
I’m not talking about lower corporate taxes
by tonythetiger · about 15 years, 4 months ago
In reply to Id that really why he won?
that only corporations with the expensive lobbyist support (which is yet another cost that gets passed down). I’m talking about elimination of corporate tax. Then there would be no NEED to lobby.
-
November 14, 2008 at 3:54 pm #2982063
talk about simple
by jdclyde · about 15 years, 4 months ago
In reply to Id that really why he won?
because obama will not “change the course” of the war, he will only add more to Afgan, as well as being stuck in Iraq.
And yes, in case you were not paying attention, most voters claimed the economy was their primary concern. anyone that isn’t clueless knows that increasing taxes on business hurts an economy, not helps it. Anyone that isn’t clueless knows that increasing the costs of energy hurts an economy, not helps it.
Think about it through more than your anti-bush glasses. Believe it or not, this wasn’t about Bush.
-
November 13, 2008 at 9:33 am #2966096
That’s always been my way too
by oz_media · about 15 years, 4 months ago
In reply to People that grew up working for what they got
If it was survival of the fittest, I would be far from first to go I’m sure as I have a million fall backs and have a lot of very varied experience. I can work anywhere, kinda like the cockroach of the working world (yeah I said it)I am sure I’d even make it a lot farther than most people here, even without a nest egg to sit on.
But I either watch everyone else perish, or pay taxes.
as I described to Tony in another post, taxes are imperative, there is no logical way out of it.
If we didn’t pay taxes, there is no police, no fire department and streets absoltely littered with homless people, breakins and thefts everywhere, complete unrest. there is no way around it, you can’t pay SOME taxes that YOU like (such as police) and not others (such as welfare) it just doesn’t work. Lets say that SOM Eprograms are ceased, such as welfare an that police etc are retained, a little more realistic. Now the police have 5x as many people to stop from crime, they have to support themselves somehow and NO they wont’ all just go to work. now teh police want mroe money, mroe staff and mroe overtime, YOUR taxes increase anyway. More crimes=more fire, more fire = more firemen, more firemen = more tax money and so on.
So what about land and fuel taxes, now you can’t afford a house anymore and can’t gas up your car to leave.
Believe me, if there was a politician somewhwre, ANYWHERE, that had a plan that would eliminate the need for financial support, he’d be president overnight. But once again, it is an impossibility if you wish to live the same free, opportunistic life you do today.
This monaing and griping about taxes is simply insane, people that do so have never considered just how the would despise the country if they were not paying taxes, so much for a string America, Gonna come up with a few billion to go to war net year? Who’s paying for that one? You would be a third world nation faster than you could say “Please sir, can I have some more?”
Don’t buy into that crap, its 50% bull and the other half’s all sh1t.
Just think about how fast America would be a downtrodden nation, that any other would invade and take over in a week’s time.
When you are holding your hand out for food, will you still think paying taxes and having welfare were such a bad thing?
I dare America to do that actually, it would be great to see them take ONE state and say no more taxes in Ohio (for example).
No more police, no more fire, millions of needy peple loivign on the streets and begging for your handout everyday. Every night you would need to sit up with your trusty gun waiting for the break-ins. Every morning you woul dhave to look obth ways befoer dartign to your car to avoid teh panhandlers, then hire a security guard to keep an eye on yoru home all day while you were out. In fact if you’ve seen the issues in Northern Africa, where everyone has personal security to keep daytime looters out of their homes while they work, it would be very similar.
You then have to worry abotu yoru security being bought out, just like the Iraqi Police toda, where they can’t even trust those within their own ranks.
America would be an even worse toilet than it is today, until someone incaded it, set up a government and started taxing the poeple and rebuilding a nation again.
-
November 13, 2008 at 10:19 am #2966076
I am ALL for that!
by maecuff · about 15 years, 4 months ago
In reply to That’s always been my way too
No more taxes in Ohio! Woo hoo!
Of course, we’re gonna have to raise taxes in all the other states so I can continue to get my free handouts.
-
November 13, 2008 at 11:20 am #2966053
You have it all wrong
by jmgarvin · about 15 years, 4 months ago
In reply to I am ALL for that!
Since CA makes 1/3 of the GDP of the US, that means we get a 2/3 tax cut and everybody else has to pick up the slack 😉
-
November 13, 2008 at 11:25 am #2966052
Good
by oz_media · about 15 years, 4 months ago
In reply to You have it all wrong
Maybe you can finally start paying the going rate for electricity from British Columbia then. ]:)
-
November 14, 2008 at 4:34 pm #2982044
Here’s my plan
by hilld · about 15 years, 4 months ago
In reply to You have it all wrong
1. Secede from the Union.
2. Stop the state tax.
3. Using the Federal formulas pay that to
the Republic of California.
4. Give a tax credit of up to $6,000 to the
filers who actually pay taxes. (no EIC)
5. Pay the budget + 10% for emergency funds.
6. Take the extra $30 bil get some serious
border security, after gutting the FED
funds that goes to the “real Americans”
we might get some visitors. -
November 14, 2008 at 6:32 am #2982643
War isn’t going away, any time soon
by jdclyde · about 15 years, 4 months ago
In reply to That’s always been my way too
Obama has already said his quick retreat from Iraq isn’t going to be as quick as he had originally said.
Fine, we start to scale back, but now we are going to escalate into Afghanistan. No soldiers coming home and same war spending, just a different landscape.
I just hope he doesn’t try to “win” defensively.
-
November 14, 2008 at 7:31 am #2982620
What is winning and how do we get there?
by jmgarvin · about 15 years, 4 months ago
In reply to War isn’t going away, any time soon
The Surge is pointless. The second the money stops flowing in, the terrorists go back to the same. We pushed for stability in Iraq at the cost of losing Afghanistan.
So, how do we “win?” What is winning? What are the milestones and benchmarks? Come on, you’ve done project management, you know that only one of these projects can succeed due to the limits in resources.
-
November 14, 2008 at 10:12 am #2982546
Afghanistan
by oz_media · about 15 years, 4 months ago
In reply to What is winning and how do we get there?
As Afghanistan seesm to be where the Taliban and locals are undivided, Musharreff (SP?) said “they are the same” ther is no Taliban this and Afghan that, people in that region will fight for the same result even if they are not terrorists.
Did yuo wantch AlJazeera news special where the interviewed the key Afghan powers instead of US or Canadian troops and commanders? Its always interesting to find out what news our media is not alowed to broadcast, the Afghans and Iraqi’s are in full control of what we air and don’t air in North America, not us.
So while people say its all crap because it isn’t in OUR media, that’s because OUR media simply gets given footage of events that they dub a narrative onto, we don’t actually shoot most of the film ourselves or choose what we can film.people just need to start seeking and comparing other sourcs if information other than our own for once.
-
November 14, 2008 at 10:07 am #2982547
Dont’see any relevance there, sorry
by oz_media · about 15 years, 4 months ago
In reply to War isn’t going away, any time soon
I don’t know what you are referring to, I didn’t mention anything about Obama stopping war, there’s no possible way I can see that happening.
As for Afghanistan, you should have retained force there all along, my whole issue with this war is when you changed focus to Iraq and left Afghanistan to fall back on its old self again. Canadian troops have seen an increase in violence that is atringer than when the coalition first occupied the area, they are undermanned, undersupported and have slowly been taking two steps forward and one back in an effort to slow the increased insurgence.
At one time there was a large allied effort, then the Embassy’s were closed, the money and support was removed and Afghans were walking around asking what heppened to the support and security they had. US troops ended up turning over security of hospitals and schools to the same people they were protecting Afghans from to begin with.
Its about time the focus was applied to the real enemy for a change.
I have NEVER, not for a single minute, thought or implied that Obama would stop the war, in fact I agree that it would be a terirble mistake; you simply shouldn’t have gone to Iraq to begin with, what a can of worms that mess is.
-
November 13, 2008 at 11:31 am #2966048
Erm, JD
by tig2 · about 15 years, 4 months ago
In reply to People that grew up working for what they got
I’m from Southern California, daughter of a man who
worked three jobs if he had to in order to keep a roof over
our heads and food on the table.People who grew up working for what they got are
everywhere. Not just in any single place.P.S. My parents raised five daughters to be good
Republicans and they did that in Southern California. -
November 13, 2008 at 12:14 pm #2966037
You have to admit
by tonythetiger · about 15 years, 4 months ago
In reply to Erm, JD
that in general, collectivists tend to clump together in units called “cities”, no?
-
November 14, 2008 at 6:35 am #2982642
Compare your father
by jdclyde · about 15 years, 4 months ago
In reply to Erm, JD
and his work ethic to what you see around you now, and tell me it is the same place you grew up in.
Some here or there, but it seems to be the exception, not the rule.
Another thing that has changes, people worked hard, lived good lives, and were happy, even without ever being “rich”. Now we are told being “poor” is bad, and someone should do something about it. (someone, as in politicians)
-
November 13, 2008 at 12:11 pm #2966038
You assume wrong
by tonythetiger · about 15 years, 4 months ago
In reply to Everything always is with you
Collectivists, as I use the term, are people who believe that every human is responsible for the well-being of every other human, [b]and that force or the threat of force should be used to enforce that responsibility.[/b] [/i]
Individualists believe that people can fend for themselves, or if they can’t, that they probably shouldn’t.
Most people are somewhere in between. I am probably a little closer to the individualist side than you are. I acknowledge a self imposed obligation to help others [b]who I determine[/b] to be in genuine need, and believe that no one person has the right to DEMAND resources from anyone, or for anyone.
-
November 13, 2008 at 3:24 pm #2965924
No one person DOES have that right
by oz_media · about 15 years, 4 months ago
In reply to You assume wrong
So you have nothing to worry about.
Your elected government does however decide how your tax dollars are spent, that’s why you vote for teh person who will best utilize your tax dollars the way you seem worthy.
As for no taxes at all, give your head a shake or move to a deserted island.
-
November 13, 2008 at 6:15 pm #2982767
How convenient!
by tonythetiger · about 15 years, 4 months ago
In reply to No one person DOES have that right
[i]No one person DOES have that right[/i]
So bullying someone is wrong, but if you vote someone into office who then bullies that someone on your behalf it’s OK because “you didn’t do it”?
[i]As for no taxes at all[/i]
Never said it. What are you up to by trying to claim I did?
-
November 14, 2008 at 10:25 am #2982540
Oh, so some taxes are okay
by oz_media · about 15 years, 4 months ago
In reply to How convenient!
But only those which you personally deem okay to be taken from your income, and of course, every other American would accept those same taxes too.
YOU have nowhere to go with this, you MUST pay taxes and you MUST pay for the cost of operating your country.
So your only valid complaint is that the taxes YOU pay are not the ones YOU would choose to pay, even if millions of Americans would rather pay their choice of taxes and not YOUR choice of taxes.
Tony, that’s stupid.
You either understand and accept the fact that taxes are a necessary evil, or yuo wish to abolish all taxes.
To complain that you have to pay some taxes and not others is ridiculous, why not just gove all Americans a sign up sheet like buying mobile phone features.
Choose from any 4 taxes from section A, any 2 taxes from section B etc.
Not exactly a viable or reasonable solution.
-
November 14, 2008 at 12:41 pm #2982133
Operating the COUNTRY
by tonythetiger · about 15 years, 4 months ago
In reply to Oh, so some taxes are okay
(or more correctly, paying for the defense and the infrastructure of the country, the cost of which should rightfully (if all citizens are to be treated equally by the government) be evenly divided among all citizens), not operating the people in it!
[added:]
It’s not a matter of choosing which taxes to pay, it’s a matter of what is a rightful use of the taxes I DO pay. I submit that it is a wrong use to specifically benefit one citizen (isn’t the government supposed to treat all citizens equally?) more than another.
-
November 14, 2008 at 3:03 pm #2982081
Equal treatment or equal opportunity
by oz_media · about 15 years, 4 months ago
In reply to Oh, so some taxes are okay
Those who need support while retraining for a new career (after their last was farmed out to India or China) is simply offering what America stans for, equal opportunity for all citizens. So the company kicks you in teh nuts, and teh government helps you get back on your feet and create new opportunities in the process. THAT’s what any worthwhile government would do.
Ever heard the term bankruptcy? Why is it legal? Why would someone be bailed out for overextending their credit and not being able to pay it back? Why should ANYONE be abele to declare bankruptcy?
because we are human beings, not pack wolves and we take care of our own, that’s what human beings do. If you don’t care for that, then pray to God that you are an animal in your next life, who doesn’t need anyoe else to help out.
And what abotu when you get old and unable to fend for yourself, why should teh government take another persons income and give it to you, an individual, to help you live the last remaining years with a little more comfort?
Do you REALLY think that your pension deductions even come somewhat close ot teh amount the government hands out to you when you are a senior citizen? Its a 50 year old plan that didn’t foresee the future, baby boomers were to pay for the elderly, unfortunately due to medical advances, old people live longer and fewer young people are being made to pay for them, so who counterbalances that loss? You do, taxes do.
So lets tale away pensions, those people that aren’t workign don’t deserve a freebe from those who do work.
Or does that also fit into yuor list of acceptable taxes because it will one day benefit you?
Have you ever needed support from teh government to keep a roof over your head? Have you ever needed teh government ot help you buy food or clothes for your children? If not you have bene fortunate, but even the best of us, the most skilled and most capable are able to be put into such positions by no action of our own.
In our eyes, tough sh1t, deal with it.
How patriotically American of you, what a way to stand up and help our fellowman, the world should take a page from your book, it would be a better place, for some.
Well done, ‘screw them, I’m looking out for me, and I’m the only one that matters.’
Nice attitude.
-
November 14, 2008 at 5:19 pm #2982028
Equal treatment.
by tonythetiger · about 15 years, 4 months ago
In reply to Oh, so some taxes are okay
Governments don’t create opportunity, people do. Consumers start and end the cycle. Without demand, nobody would have any reason to start a business, and there would be no opportunities for people (unless you implement slave labor and everybody works for the government), and without jobs,people couldn’t buy stuff. We don’t need the government for ANYTHING pertaining to the economy.
[i]because we are human beings, not pack wolves and we take care of our own, that’s what human beings do.[/i]
Exactly right. HUMANS do, not governments.
[i]And what abotu when you get old and unable to fend for yourself, why should teh government take another persons income and give it to you, an individual, to help you live the last remaining years with a little more comfort?[/i]
They won’t. I’ll pay my way while I can, and when I can’t, I’ll die. Yes, you read it right. I’ll not be a burden to you.
[i]Do you REALLY think that your pension deductions even come somewhat close ot teh amount the government hands out to you when you are a senior citizen?[/i]
In my case, it’ll be pretty close, as I’ve saved up quite a bit, and when I start drawing it, Social Security will means test me ($1 off for every $2 earned) and I won’t get much, if anything.
[i]Have you ever needed support from teh government to keep a roof over your head?[/i]
No, but I have lived without a roof over my head, doing as long as seven months in a stretch in my younger days (not too difficult for a single guy). I got odd jobs and I was thankful for the opportunity provided by the owners of those businesses and farms. I’ve (SPCA members hide your eyes) fished and hunted and trapped animals to eat, and I know which plants are edible. I never demanded anything from anyone though.
[i]How patriotically American of you, what a way to stand up and help our fellowman, the world should take a page from your book, it would be a better place, for some.[/i]
I have taken children and even entire FAMILIES into my home for weeks at a time. I have donated time to help build homes for others. I help my fellow man almost every day. I just don’t force someone else to pay for it. I think that really irks you, because it shows that the government isn’t needed as much as you think it is.
[i]Well done, ‘screw them, I’m looking out for me, and I’m the only one that matters.[/i]
You see what you want to see, just like you accuse me of.
The money that businesses and the wealthy pay in taxes would create more opportunities for more people than that same amount in the hands in the government, because the government eats at least half of it. The government would lose a lot of control though, and they can’t have that… They aren’t reacting to poverty, they are RESPONSIBLE for it!
-
November 13, 2008 at 12:36 pm #2966030
I hope you’ll re-think that.
by tonythetiger · about 15 years, 4 months ago
In reply to Everything always is with you
[i]I’m gonna lobby to have your alias changed to Archie Bunker I think. [/i]
You couldn’t be further wrong.
-
November 13, 2008 at 3:25 pm #2965923
That’s your decision
by oz_media · about 15 years, 4 months ago
In reply to I hope you’ll re-think that.
You cast your own impression on people, I can’t do it for you.
-
November 13, 2008 at 6:25 pm #2982764
I decided
by tonythetiger · about 15 years, 4 months ago
In reply to That’s your decision
that I like you in spite of your obvious flaws 🙂
-
November 14, 2008 at 10:27 am #2982539
Me too
by oz_media · about 15 years, 4 months ago
In reply to I decided
I like me too, despite my obvious flaws. To suggest anyone isn’t flawed is to be naiive.
I understand, accept and have grown fond of what some people (including myself) consider my flaws, to me its just character and everyone needs character.
-
November 14, 2008 at 1:02 pm #2982123
That’s why I didn’t :)
by tonythetiger · about 15 years, 4 months ago
In reply to Me too
[i]To suggest anyone isn’t flawed is to be naiive.[/i]
-
-
-
November 13, 2008 at 12:11 pm #2966039
Population density supports an artist class
by road-dog · about 15 years, 4 months ago
In reply to Election demographics
Areas like NY and LA have high population densities which afford enough patronage to support an artistic class. A symphony orchestra is a tough sell in an area where the 10 percent of the population that appreciates classical music equals 1 person per square mile. NYC has several million in several square miles and 10 percent of that is more than enough to keep the Rockettes kicking.
Now spatial thinking might explain democrat voting, but I have another theory. Urban areas force a more collective mindset. Interpersonal dependencies make life possible. A more connected worldview lends itself to ideologies that generally move toward collectivism. Hence big government and centralized authority, which is necessary to enforce collectivism.
Rural areas create people who are generally self-reliant, as the ability to rely on others is limited. This fosters a worldview where independence is valued. Conservatism reflects this self-reliant worldview much more so than what has become to be known as liberalism today.
OK, enough sociology for now, at least in a general ans demographic way. I’d like to see somebody pick apart the relationship between artistic minds and liberalism though… It seems to me that folks who perceive themselves as creative seem to have this idea that somehow they know what’s good for everybody else.
If the 20th century has taught us anything, it should have shown us to be wary of high IQ folks with a grand social vision and desiring of political power to enforce it.
-
November 13, 2008 at 3:32 pm #2982875
Its okay you can come out from under the bed now
by oz_media · about 15 years, 4 months ago
In reply to Population density supports an artist class
The collectivists won’t get to you.
With comments like FORCE and ENFORCE I can see how you can asily escalate a simple, semifactual theory into fear.
It’s gonna be okay, the boogiemen aren’t coming to catch you, you can relax now.
And seeing as you (the USA) rely on most of the world to function as a country, collectivism should be far from your fears. You RELY on that colective practice just to make it through each day.
Where else would you get your food, power, oil and building materials? Texas? New York? LosAngeles?
Or is it Canada, Saudi Arabia, Mexico, Brazil etc? You know, the countries most Americans turn their noses up at, the ones which keep you alive and able to function as a nation whiel you say everyone wishes they lived in America, yeah that makes sense doesn’t it.
“Gee, I have those resources now, and a much less crowded population,less crime, less of a national threat and higher income but I think I’ll move to the USA. Yeah, that’s the ticket” LOL.
-
November 14, 2008 at 6:00 am #2982659
Why not use them?
by tonythetiger · about 15 years, 4 months ago
In reply to Its okay you can come out from under the bed now
[i]With comments like FORCE and ENFORCE[/i]
They are absolutely true. There are people in PRISON right now who can attest. There are people who had all of their assets taken from them and sold who can attest.
-
November 14, 2008 at 10:33 am #2982533
Because you are not on the same page?
by oz_media · about 15 years, 4 months ago
In reply to Why not use them?
“Urban areas force a more collective mindset.”
Do they? How so? Hwo are people in LA, “forced” to accept a more collective mindset? I see accepting exposure as an act of will, nto force.
“Hence big government and centralized authority, which is necessary to enforce collectivism.” Forced collectivism? So people in LA have no choice, they are not allowed to move to where the state policy adheres more to their liking? They are forced to accept it.
Wow, you need someone to invade you and topple your state dictators and FORCE democracy on you, as have fruitlessly tried in Iraq.
-
November 14, 2008 at 11:29 am #2982160
Tell the IRS [edit mistype]
by tonythetiger · about 15 years, 4 months ago
In reply to Because you are not on the same page?
you’re not going to pay to support the bums and see what happens.
-
November 14, 2008 at 3:05 pm #2982079
Okay
by oz_media · about 15 years, 4 months ago
In reply to Tell the IRS [edit mistype]
Now show me a country that has ANY strength at all, even just two guys with paintball guns, which survives without taxation.
If you want to complain about paying taxes, do so, to blame taxation on the Democrats is absolutely insane.
-
November 14, 2008 at 4:26 pm #2982048
The power is supposed to be, in order
by tonythetiger · about 15 years, 4 months ago
In reply to Okay
The people
The state
The United States
Not the other way around. So ideally, I have my earnings. The lion’s share of any taxes I pay should go to my state state (unlike in Canada, the “states” of the United States are supposed to be largely sovereign. That’s why, for example, murder is a state crime, not a federal one (unless it occurs on a federal installation). This sovereignty has been bastardized for money grubbing purposes. For example, If Wyoming doesn’t have enough money to maintain its highways, Wyoming should raise taxes on Wyoming’s citizens until it has enough to meet its needs, not take money away from Indiana’s taxpayers.) with each state paying a share of the cost of the running of the federal government, based upon that state’s population.
[i]If you want to complain about paying taxes, do so, [/i]
I’m not complaining about paying taxes, I’m complaining about paying more tax than I should have to, because a very large part of the tax I pay is being misused.
[i] to blame taxation on the Democrats is absolutely insane.[/i]
Why? The misuse was largely brought about by Democrats’ Welfare mentality. Unfortunately, the disease has infected many Republicans too.
-
November 15, 2008 at 7:53 am #2981923
unlike in Canada, the “states” of the United States
by oz_media · about 15 years, 4 months ago
In reply to Okay
Not that different at all, our provinces all work with independant budgets, many laws etc as we3ll. Some provinces fed others but Canada is not the giant collective people think it is. We don’t all line up at the bank with our paychecks and wait for some of it to be given back to us.
Many Americans feel their system is so independent and unique to others, when it is not. Your government and laws are all modelled after those of your forefathers founding nations, mainly the UK.
-
November 14, 2008 at 8:33 am #2982589
Wow, where did that come from?
by road-dog · about 15 years, 4 months ago
In reply to Its okay you can come out from under the bed now
You’re taking a simple rural vs urban area sociology theory and turning it into something that it isn’t.
Please feel free to bring out your opinions, but please try to stop at some point before attempting to ascribe fear as my motive for having the opinions that I have.
I was acknowledging a sociological condition that “forces” social interdependency while observing that this force does not exist to such a great degree in a rural setting.
As for enforce, yes, any “top down” sociological change requires enforcement. Some of this is benign, a lot isn’t.
For instance, I allow my dog to crap in my back yard. In a large city, my back yard would also be somebody else’s front yard. Thus, sociological forces move society to create laws and enforcement mechanisms to make sure that I clean up after my dog. So, I would obey the law for the collective good. Laws like that are essential in the preservation of a decent standard of living in a congested environment.
I believe that we should be wary of those who wish to impose their social agenda more sweepingly than necessary, that being only enough to support a working society. In that instance, I fall back on a principle that the government that governs best governs least.
-
November 14, 2008 at 10:49 am #2982183
attempting to ascribe fear as my motive for having the opinions that I have
by oz_media · about 15 years, 4 months ago
In reply to Wow, where did that come from?
Americans are fuelled and elad by fear, have been since teh dawn of America. Fear of losing independance, fear of WMD’s ,fear of socialism, fear ofXYZ its one thing after another, America is fuelled by fear, the rest of the world sees it but Americans FEAR such a reality.
[i]” I allow my dog to crap in my back yard. In a large city, my back yard would also be somebody else’s front yard. Thus, sociological forces move society to create laws and enforcement mechanisms to make sure that I clean up after my dog. “[/i]
Your backyard is THEIR front yard? Sorry I’ve been to New Yorn, LA, Sanfran and most other ‘major’ cities in the US, whether coastal or not. I have yet to see two people SHARE a yard, or was that just another exaggeration because people live closer to each other and don’t have 8 acres between them?
as for dogs cleanup being enforced, it is in MOST places around teh world now for the key reason being PUBLIC HEALTH. Its not some twink that gets an idea and feels it should be law. Removing fecal matter, is a health issue.
Do you think we don’t crap in the street just because we are embarrassed to? Of course, not, look how many poeple used to die from disease before the Romans brought aqueducts and sewers into the world.In a large urban area its not a matter of onea half dozen dogs doing their business in a field, this is millions of people stepping in and transfering that matter into restaurants, homes, public transportation etc. It is a health risk, not just some overpaid beaurocrat with a misison to make conformists of society…how stupid!
When millions of people have to coexist in teh same area, you HAVE to accept soem limitations on rights on order to not step on other people’s rights in the process. A middle ground is imperative.
You can’t let your dog crap in eth street, but we’ll make a corner of teh public park ‘dog friendly’ to accomodate your dogs. Now that also infringes on others who used ot lay in the sun there, but that’s the give and take it requires to function in a heavily poplated area. Your FORCING and ENFORCING comments just display your fear of order or control in society, “why can’t we all just run amok and not be forced to be civil or develop as a society?”
Y’all stick to the swamp or the range, mate. As long as you stay away from a civilized, mainstream society, (okay, conformists that are like Borg, forced to obey the wishes of the collective) you will always be alowed to let your dog crap where it pleases and when it pleases.
-
November 14, 2008 at 11:28 am #2982161
Wow again…
by road-dog · about 15 years, 4 months ago
In reply to attempting to ascribe fear as my motive for having the opinions that I have
OK let me simplify this for you, if it doesn’t help, then you’re just wanting an argument for argument’s sake.
Didn’t I just say that some laws are for the collective good? That I would obey a law enforcing a cleanup after my dog? Dense population requires accommodation of others and prevention of public nuisances, etc.
OK, you think that enforcement = fear in my mind. I get it. For the love of God, please read if you’re going to reply to me. Sheesh!
-
November 14, 2008 at 3:20 pm #2982076
Sociological forces?
by oz_media · about 15 years, 4 months ago
In reply to Wow, where did that come from?
“For instance, I allow my dog to crap in my back yard. In a large city, my back yard would also be somebody else’s front yard. Thus, sociological forces move society to create laws and enforcement mechanisms to make sure that I clean up after my dog.”
there now you know I read it…and I still disagree with you.
There is no sociological force that moves society to make sure you clean up after your dog. It is a sensible law, which in this case you feel is due to sociological force. How about public health?
Is recoginizing a health risk, and then working to eliminate it, considered forcing sociological values upon society?
So forcing HIV sufferers to wear condoms and notify partners of their disease is also just collectivism due to democrats living on the coast? (well it must be because there are no gay republicans, that would really go against the grain)
You were clearly trying to impress that it is a decmocratic society that ensures such force, as if it wouldn’t be so under a republican administration.
Your initial post was to illustrate that democrats believe in and are forced into a form of collectivism, as if that only applies to democrats.
[i]”…democrat voting, but I have another theory. Urban areas force a more collective mindset. Interpersonal dependencies make life possible. A more connected worldview lends itself to ideologies that generally move toward collectivism. Hence big government and centralized authority, which is necessary to enforce collectivism.
Rural areas create people who are generally self-reliant, as the ability to rely on others is limited. This fosters a worldview where independence is valued. Conservatism reflects this self-reliant worldview much more so than what has become to be known as liberalism today. “[/i]
So democrats are not self reliant, they need to be coesxisting in collectives and forced into comliance. Whereas republicans are more self-reliant and do not need to rely on others.
Okay so back to collectivism, and you example of yuor dog, so if you are FORCED to clean up after your dog, that is a result of urban collectivism and has nothing to do with health, the fact that they have greater numbers of tourists and want to keep THOSE health risks at a minimum as well as making the place look more respectable.
It is the democrats and their collectivism that make your country appear more attractive and welcoming and civilized to visitors form other nations? Because they are forced into compliance? Because there are kaws that most dense societies must follow in order to funtion as a responsible society?
Where are you going with this? Back to square one but with a twist to make you look sane?
-
-
-
November 14, 2008 at 10:55 am #2982176
my analysis…in brief
by jck · about 15 years, 4 months ago
In reply to Election demographics
If you look at the majority of states that McCain got lots of votes in…it was the deep south…where racism is still an issue to this day.
I think part of McCain’s support came from that demographic as well, which is just as racist as some black voting for Obama because he’s black.
I voted for Obama because I believe he’ll take the country in a positive direction.
-
November 14, 2008 at 4:20 pm #2982052
That card plays too
by oz_media · about 15 years, 4 months ago
In reply to my analysis…in brief
I agree and did consider that but thought it would be taken as racism against the redkneck yokels who live in the US swamps….. (ooops, I knew I was gonna do that).
Anyhow, I think those woth greater exposure to teh rest of teh wold accept it and want to encourage such global relationships. Those without teh same exposure, see what CNN and the others thrust at them, have lesser understanding of people from other nations and simply feel more in tune with America as an independant.
As some have acknowledged, the BLUE states are generally where mroe artistic right braine dthinkers live, a simple fact, and they have a greater global awareness, more spacial thinking and are more open minded and accepting of unification of race and nation.
-
-
-
AuthorReplies