inner city and the democratic party

[Bocephus]

enlighten me Spence you seem to know alot about politics, and/or have an excuse for everything thats wrong with liberal politicians and policies. Im really just looking for something, anything so that I can say, "oh, ok, now I understand" because I am apparently "missing the boat". Or dont answer. It really doesnt matter to me, I just thought id throw it out there and see what came back.

[spence]

People seem to be missing the obvious, that the city is where a lot of the money is, the jobs are and this caused a lot of population density that persists today.

A lot of people living in close confines requires different rules than in the country. A city is an inherently dense system, where in the country it's much easier to live by your own rules. An example of this might be restrictive handgun laws, which to a moderate might make more sense in a city than in the country.

The needs of the city aligns better with some pure liberal values (that our strength comes from the village, which is nearly intrinsic) than perhaps pure conservative values (that our strength comes from the individual).

Certainly if everybody shared the same high ethical convictions, this may not be the case. But in the real world, biasing towards the rights of the individual could easily prove disastrous in the city. Granted, there are some who advocate if everybody had a gun, there would be no crime, but I think this view is wacky.

None of this is meant as an excuse for bad behavior, but rather how things may have come to be. I'd also note that both parties have a habit for hypocrisy and a base attracted often to less universal qualities.

-spence

[scottw]

Originally Posted by spence

People seem to be missing the obvious, that the city is where a lot of the money is, the jobs are and this caused a lot of population density that persists today.

A lot of people living in close confines requires different rules than in the country. A city is an inherently dense system, where in the country it's much easier to live by your own rules. An example of this might be restrictive handgun laws, which to a moderate might make more sense in a city than in the country.

The needs of the city aligns better with some pure liberal values (that our strength comes from the village, which is nearly intrinsic) than perhaps pure conservative values (that our strength comes from the individual).

Certainly if everybody shared the same high ethical convictions, this may not be the case. But in the real world, biasing towards the rights of the individual could easily prove disastrous in the city. Granted, there are some who advocate if everybody had a gun, there would be no crime, but I think this view is wacky.

None of this is meant as an excuse for bad behavior, but rather how things may have come to be. I'd also note that both parties have a habit for hypocrisy and a base attracted often to less universal qualities.

-spence

I cannot stop laughing...
you asked for it Bo is it clearer now? do you get the "obvious"?

the city is where a lot of money is $$$$....

a city is inherently dense....

in the country it's much easier to live....
our strenght comes from the village....
ther rights of the individual could prove disasterous....
I think this view is whacky....
less universal "qualities"???

you can always tell when Spence isn't transposing talking points...he doesn't sound quite as ahhhhhhh....knowledgable? like Obama without the teleprompter...

too freakin' funny......

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by spence

People seem to be missing the obvious, that the city is where a lot of the money is, the jobs are and this caused a lot of population density that persists today.

This paragraph is totally circular. Did population density occur because there was a lot of money and jobs in a lowly populated city and that attracted a density of newcomers, or, ipso facto, large numbers of people means more money and jobs.

A lot of people living in close confines requires different rules than in the country. A city is an inherently dense system, where in the country it's much easier to live by your own rules. An example of this might be restrictive handgun laws, which to a moderate might make more sense in a city than in the country.

You, of course, mean a large city of relatively small area. There are smaller cities that are not as dense a system and a bit larger ones that sprawl a bit. Unfortunately, laws are promulgated in uniform codes. That is, the country and city have to abide by the same laws. Close confines are a relative concept as well. The concept might more aptly apply to large families or tenants living in the same housing, or to a lesser degree to compacted housing that is not indicative of all large cities, nor to every district of our large cities in the U.S.

The needs of the city aligns better with some pure liberal values (that our strength comes from the village, which is nearly intrinsic) than perhaps pure conservative values (that our strength comes from the individual).

Of course, villages, by definition, are small "usually ranking in size between a hamlet and a town." Many, if not most small towns are of conservative persuasion. It seems that your perspective lends itself to a divergence from the views of our founding fathers.

Certainly if everybody shared the same high ethical convictions, this may not be the case. But in the real world, biasing towards the rights of the individual could easily prove disastrous in the city. Granted, there are some who advocate if everybody had a gun, there would be no crime, but I think this view is wacky.

It sounds like your concept of a city is like that of a commune. Almost marxist. "biasing towards the right of the individual" no matter the size of his community is, I think, what was meant by a right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Given that any group of people have differing personalities and pursuits, to constrain them to the ant hill of a group contradicts what we have been about for three hundred years. I understand that extreme leftists want to change that (even for folks who live in the country), but to be so open about it is a bit frightening. If we can divide now, not only by race, sex, financial status, but by city and country, how will we stand?

I don't think anybody advocates that if everybody had a gun there would be no crime. Gun advocates argue that those who have guns can better defend themselves against criminals who have guns. Whether this would lower crime rates is not the question. As for murder, Switzerland, which may have the highest percentage of gun ownership, ranks #56 our of 62 in murders per capita. The UK, which may have close to the lowest percentage of gun ownership, ranks #46 out of 62 in murders per capita.

None of this is meant as an excuse for bad behavior, but rather how things may have come to be. I'd also note that both parties have a habit for hypocrisy and a base attracted often to less universal qualities.
-spence

If this is so, we have come to be in a bad way.

[Cool Beans]

I don't know, I think if I was a robber, I would think twice before breaking and entering into a home, if I knew that every house had a gun in it, with a citizen ready to use it in defense of his or her home.

Remember "Any which way but loose" with Clint Eastwood, the scene where his old mother is on the porch and the biker gang comes into her yard? What happened when she brought out that 12 guage and started shooting?

Also how many people were robbed in the old west? Bandits didn't hit citizens carrying guns, instead they went for the banks and stage coaches, because if you are going to risk getting shot, make sure the pay out is worth the risk.

$40 from an old lady isn't worth a possible bullet hole.......

[scottw]

still doesn't explain why dwellers of inner cities continually vote democrat criminals and reprobates into office, or why larger democrat dominated areas like say, RI, continually vote moron, drug addict, alcoholic trust fund children like Patrick Kennedy into office...I mean, it's one thing to vote a guy or gal in and then find out that they are completely corrupt or inept....but when there's ample evidence that the person is a complete crook(Charlie Wrangle), idiot(Kennedy) or worse, and you live in conditions that are generationally miserable and the same politicians from the same party are still promising you the same thing and 35,000 of you run to get in line for more handouts because Obama is giving out money I think it's pretty obvious that you are willing to trade the one thing that you are told each election season is your most precious right, your vote, for the promise of government largess..."gettin' paid"....not "Hope and Change"....someone else's bills and change...the far left and the Democrats have convinced an entire portion of our population that they are entitled to the product of the work of others, they have so tied these populations(most of which are around the city centers and easy to control at election time) to government handouts that are only designed to remove responsibility from every aspect of their lives that the vast numbers are simply content to "exist"...a few may rise out of the neighborhood but the odds are surely against that....they feed at the hands of democrat politicians and need to perpetuate the programs that they are enslaved to... in order to continue their existence....these are the trial grounds for democrat policies, programs and social engineering and look what they have wrought.....

this is the failed model that Obama and the dems would like to follow for the rest of the nation.......it's all about government dependence....not independence

[Fly Rod]

SCOTTW

U R right on.

[spence]

Originally Posted by detbuch

This paragraph is totally circular. Did population density occur because there was a lot of money and jobs in a lowly populated city and that attracted a density of newcomers, or, ipso facto, large numbers of people means more money and jobs.

Doesn't really matter, cities had these properties long before American cities were founded.

You, of course, mean a large city of relatively small area. There are smaller cities that are not as dense a system and a bit larger ones that sprawl a bit. Unfortunately, laws are promulgated in uniform codes. That is, the country and city have to abide by the same laws.

A city can pass different laws than a rural area, they just have to be constitutional.

Of course, villages, by definition, are small "usually ranking in size between a hamlet and a town." Many, if not most small towns are of conservative persuasion. It seems that your perspective lends itself to a divergence from the views of our founding fathers.

Adjective, not noun.

It sounds like your concept of a city is like that of a commune. Almost marxist. "biasing towards the right of the individual" no matter the size of his community is, I think, what was meant by a right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Given that any group of people have differing personalities and pursuits, to constrain them to the ant hill of a group contradicts what we have been about for three hundred years. I understand that extreme leftists want to change that (even for folks who live in the country), but to be so open about it is a bit frightening. If we can divide now, not only by race, sex, financial status, but by city and country, how will we stand?

So by your logic we shouldn't have a Federal government to provide interstate highways and a common defense.

Funny how some can only interpret ideas in their most extreme form.

I don't think anybody advocates that if everybody had a gun there would be no crime.

Yet, I've heard it time and time again...

Gun advocates argue that those who have guns can better defend themselves against criminals who have guns. Whether this would lower crime rates is not the question. As for murder, Switzerland, which may have the highest percentage of gun ownership, ranks #56 our of 62 in murders per capita. The UK, which may have close to the lowest percentage of gun ownership, ranks #46 out of 62 in murders per capita.

It's difficult to understand statistics in that narrow context. It's like saying Hawaii's health care works so it should work in any state.

If this is so, we have come to be in a bad way.

That's quite a negative view of ourselves, we are after all, a product of history.

-spence

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by spence

That's quite a negative view of ourselves, we are after all, a product of history.-spence

I said IF! When I said "if this is so, we have come to be in a bad way," I was referring to your views, not mine. I didn't express views about us. I view some of us positively (the doers, creators, warriors, strivers, the free and independent minded, especially constitutional originalists), and I view some of us negatively--slackers, those who wait for help when they have the ability to help themselves, socialists, marxists.

Your view that we are a product of history defines, concisely, the difference in our views--probably an essential difference between conservatives and liberals. My view is that history is a product of us.

[Joe]

How do you feel about the tired, the poor, the huddled masses yearning to breathe free, the wretched refuse of teeming shores, the homeless and the tempest-tossed?

[scottw]

Originally Posted by Joe

How do you feel about the tired, the poor, the huddled masses yearning to breathe free, the wretched refuse of teeming shores, the homeless and the tempest-tossed?

depends....are they coming here for opportunity and the chance to work for a better life for themselves and their children or are they coming here to become generationally dependent on government programs and as such, loyal democrat voters in return for subsidising their existence ?...

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by Joe

How do you feel about the tired, the poor, the huddled masses yearning to breathe free, the wretched refuse of teeming shores, the homeless and the tempest-tossed?

If you're tired, get more sleep or take vitamins. If you're poor and able, get a better job or create your own. If you yearn to breathe free, blow your nose and learn to be independent--dependency is a sure road to loss of freedom. If you are a wretched refuse, you require quite a bit, how much you can do for yourself in that condition (what is a wretched refuse?) may be minimal--you may need some help, then, if you can ever recover from such a state, and if that state was caused by some power that reduced you to it, you will probably desire to be free of any power that can do it again, and you will probably cherish the freedom to resist it. Same for the homeless and tempest-tossed. The Statue of Liberty was given to us as gesture of our unique contribution to freedom and the individual's yearning to breathe that air. (That's just my twisted take on the gift--their was probably some yearning for Socialism in the giver--if so, send it back.)

My take on the overused phrase "the American Dream" is that the original American Dream was freedom. Somehow, that dream got debased to something like a house, a car, a chicken in every pot, and health care. Perhaps, freedom has become so taken for granted that we find it too burdensome to exercise the "eternal vigilance" required to keep it. The comforts that have ensued through freedom and hard work have become more valued than what has been required to gain those comforts.

I know, I know. . .the Statue of Liberty was a gift recognizing friendship between France and The U.S. But it has become a symbol of much more than that, the above is my personal symbolism, especially since that supposed friendship has so deteriorated.

[spence]

Originally Posted by detbuch

I said IF! When I said "if this is so, we have come to be in a bad way," I was referring to your views, not mine. I didn't express views about us.

It's also part of who we are. If someone behaves in a socialistic manner out of a genuine sense of charity or belief in equality does that make their intention bad? Like usual, this isn't a world of extremes.

I view some of us positively (the doers, creators, warriors, strivers, the free and independent minded, especially constitutional originalists), and I view some of us negatively--slackers, those who wait for help when they have the ability to help themselves, socialists, marxists.

What about the socialist/marxist creaters and doers? For example, a lot of good art and music certainly came out of mother Russia.

One could even argue that the "slacker" mentality in the US is a byproduct of the wealth from a free market society. Does that mean it's rooted in socialism? Seems a bit contradictory to me.

Your view that we are a product of history defines, concisely, the difference in our views--probably an essential difference between conservatives and liberals. My view is that history is a product of us.

This is relative to your particular reference frame. Generally speaking, most of us don't have influence beyond ourselves, our family and perhaps our job. I expect my influence on history to be somewhat contained, although I am working hard to prove otherwise.

The influence on history of the few in selected positions of power or more importantly the behavior of the mass has a much larger bearing on how history will be written.

I have noticed you tend to look for differences where as I tend to look for similarities. This would make sense as I usually operate on a spectrum where you seem to go towards extremes.

I'm not sure this has anything to do with ideology though, unless it's just validation that I'm a centrist and you're perhaps on the fringe.

-spence

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by spence

It's also part of who we are. If someone behaves in a socialistic manner out of a genuine sense of charity or belief in equality does that make their intention bad? Like usual, this isn't a world of extremes.

The intentions of socialists are good. When they are expressed in a personally charitable way, that is, helping others out of their own pocket or their own labor-- I don't consider that socialism. That's just the true milk of human kindness. I consider socialism to be a much more EXTREME form of goodness, in which out of the desire to eliminate the ills that befall mankind, the socialist COERCES some to redistribute their sustenance and redirect their labor for the benefit of others, to create an artificial, unsustainable equality--a collapse, if you will, of your spectrum into a dense black hole where there are no extremes, just the boring gray of an ant hill existence.

What about the socialist/marxist creaters and doers? For example, a lot of good art and music certainly came out of mother Russia.

The best art and music that came out of mother Russia was during its imperial, not communist, era. Marxist art is, to me, a blatant exaltation of the power of revolution of the masses. It makes godlike the proletarian who, in actuality, only serves an unimaginative and brutal ruling clique.

One could even argue that the "slacker" mentality in the US is a byproduct of the wealth from a free market society. Does that mean it's rooted in socialism? Seems a bit contradictory to me.

Slackers in a free market society don't have to be rooted in socialism. Never said that. I just have a negative view of them.

This is relative to your particular reference frame. Generally speaking, most of us don't have influence beyond ourselves, our family and perhaps our job. I expect my influence on history to be somewhat contained, although I am working hard to prove otherwise.

To view ourselves as a product of history is to see us as rather helpless--a PRODUCT predetermined by machinations beyond our control. This does fit the concept of the victim needing the intentional power of the history making Leviathan to protect and succor him.

I like what De Sousa says about what is uniquely American--here more than anywhere else, you have the freedom to make yourself what you wish. You are not trapped into a particular tradition or social class or occupation if you CHOOSE otherwise. And your INTENTION is not to influence history, but history will result from all our efforts (including yours, Spence). To the individualist, the capitalist, the conservative, history is the product. It is the record of our accomplishments, not the master that mashes us into a proletarian mold.

I have noticed you tend to look for differences where as I tend to look for similarities. This would make sense as I usually operate on a spectrum where you seem to go towards extremes.

I don't look for differences or similarities, I see them as they exist on the continuum of life. If you only LOOK for one, you miss the other. Does your spectrum only contain similarities? That seems rather extreme. It does conform to the socialistic, anti-individualistic view, though.

I'm not sure this has anything to do with ideology though, unless it's just validation that I'm a centrist and you're perhaps on the fringe.
-spence

Just what are you in the center of? Does quantum theory, or relativity theory have a center? Does the universe have a center? What is the center of your existence? Do you exist in the middle of some pre-determined historical warp? What is the center of the constant motion and evolution of life? Even more curious, what is the fringe? Is not every point in space and time the center? And at the same moment, is not every point the fringe? You are no more in the center than I, nor I anymore on the fringe than you.

[scottw]

Originally Posted by spence

It's also part of who we are. If someone behaves in a socialistic manner out of a genuine sense of charity or belief in equality does that make their intention bad? charity involves donation of your own money not the confiscation of someone else's for your "charity"

What about the socialist/marxist creaters and doers? For example, a lot of good art and music certainly came out of mother Russia. yes, the propoganda art and the roaring anthems praising the STATE, those were great... and don't forget the starvation and slaughter by the socialist/marxist "creaters and doers"

One could even argue that the "slacker" mentality in the US is a byproduct of the wealth from a free market society. Does that mean it's rooted in socialism? Seems a bit contradictory to me. One could argue that the slacker mentality is a byproduct of decades of increasing government handouts which have destroyed the family unit and created huge swaths of dependent individuals that know only that they need government programs to continue their existence......this would be rooted in socialism....


I expect my influence on history to be somewhat contained, although I am working hard to prove otherwise. ummmmm...if you plan on influencing "history"...you might consider expanding you "influence" beyond the political section of a fishing website and away from Detbuch because he continually beeeotch slaps you



I'm a centrist...


-spence

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by spence

Doesn't really matter, cities had these properties long before American cities were founded.

It matters a great deal. American cities were not founded with the massive population density that some have now. How they got that way and what has changed is the crux of this discussion. American cities have many similarities in their founding to earlier cities--commerce being a major point. But their are also differences. Post colonial American cities were founded bottom-up and required greater exercise of freedom and personal responsibility than cities forged under kingly/imperial regimes. What has happened to them as they have become more governed, assuming a top-down nature with more responsibility rising to the "governers" rather than the "people" is a sapping of vitality. The population density remains but the jobs and money are not as great. Your "obvious" reason that everybody was missing ("the city is where a lot of the money is, the jobs are") does not explain why the urban poor, especially those who do not avail themselves of the jobs, vote Democrat. The top-down nature has created a dependency class who do not value freedom with responsibility, but require the handouts that give them the indentured "freedom" to do very little and get the more than deserved little in return. And those remaining who are still responsible and desire more freedom to pursue their happiness in their INDIVIDUAL way, are coerced into paying for the underclass who are there for the redistribution.

The needs of the transformed post-welfare city certainly, as you say, align better with "some" pure liberal values--BECAUSE THEY WERE TRANSFORMED SO BY THOSE LIBERAL VALUES!--which is again, like your first paragraph, circular.

So by your logic we shouldn't have a Federal government to provide interstate highways and a common defense.

In order to have a common defense (which IS an original duty of the Federal Gov., not the host of "duties" it has absconded from the states) we must BE in common. The liberal tactic of dividing us to conquer votes defeats the commonality required for a common defense. We must have internal wars between our opposing sexual, racial, financial, city/country, pro or anti Americans, marxist/capitalists, labor/management, and on and on groups who must not agree on anything that might defeat their party's chance to win the next election, before we can conduct a war against those who would destroy us, and even do that poorly because anti-war chatter subverts the mission.

Funny how some can only interpret ideas in their most extreme form.

Funny how you can complain about extreme interpretation when you can say that biasing towards the rights of the individual could easily prove DISASTROUS in the city. And bring up the federal gov. building interstate highways as if my logic precluded that.

Yet, I've heard it time and time again...

If you have heard time and time again that if everybody had a gun there would be NO crime, perhaps you have been listening to the same person or persons time and time again. I have heard some say, with good reason, that there would be LESS crime. The NO crime thing I have not yet heard. Of course there are, as you say, extremists.

It's difficult to understand statistics in that narrow context. It's like saying Hawaii's health care works so it should work in any state-spence

The statistics in that narrow context and in other narrow contexts, which add to a larger context, show that restrictive gun laws do not necessarily do what they advocate. And this has nothing to do with Hawaii's health care plan.