| Forum Index > General Forum |
Hey guys! We'll be closing this thread shortly, but we will make an American politics megathread where we can continue the discussions in here. The new thread can be found here: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=383301 | ||
|
D10
Brazil3409 Posts
On November 12 2012 00:43 JinDesu wrote: Annoying and liberally biased. At least the Daily Show is funny and is less overbearing. How can they be liberally biased ? I didnt think such a thing was even possible | ||
|
ticklishmusic
United States15977 Posts
On November 12 2012 11:27 NeMeSiS3 wrote: The only person mad should be you I think... I don't know if you know this but most of the southern states are the POOREST states with regards to civilian per year accumulation, add that into the social collapse and federal funding cut and those states are making a statement, they're not going to do fuck all. Texas, land of the prisons attempting to survive without federal funding? That'd be the day hahahahahaha. Texas has such a strong budget because of the privitized prison system, which is... kept afloat... by federal... spending... :D Err, I think you misunderstood me. I think its cute that these people think they can secede given then fact most of their state economies are only kept afloat by federal funding (they probably don't know it or would argue the numbers are made made up like polls). Besides even if we lost the South, I'd be alright. We'd get Puerto Rico. | ||
|
sc2superfan101
3583 Posts
| ||
|
Sermokala
United States14220 Posts
| ||
|
Romantic
United States1844 Posts
On November 12 2012 11:50 oneofthem wrote: this poster talking about immigration... srsly? how about the u.s. the only instances of failed integration are teh results of the majority's active marginalization of willing or unwilling migrant groups. precisely what you are doing now. borders and sovereignty claims are basically more codified "pee on this tree" gestures. they may be 'natural' but so is genocidal instincts. there is no privileged claim to land resources and openness is the default position with regard to welcoming people into a community. Integration\melting pot =\= multiculturalism. Multiculturalism occurs when immigrants do not integrate. If they integrated there wouldn't be two cultures anymore. Many things influence the ability to assimilate and for a long time the USA did decently or horribly (north vs south culture, led to a war) depending on how you look at it. Most of the immigrants were white and Christian and the federal government wasn't very important, people lived in isolated communities and as long as that held it was... OK. You could be bigoted for a while, then after a few generations the white folk were indistinguishable and it died away. I won't make any arguments about biological problems because I find the entire thing muddled from both sides, but I don't think it is necessary to argue the differences are biological, just that they exist or are believed to exist and they persist. I don't find nations to be natural. What we have is a nation, though, and we'd better damn well use it. I don't see allowing someone in to a "community" to be a default position. I am selective about the people I associate with, date, allow in to my home, who I want to live by (as far as I can tell), etc. No reason why I wouldn't apply this to people being allowed in to a nation. | ||
|
aksfjh
United States4853 Posts
On November 12 2012 12:00 sc2superfan101 wrote: you guys do realize that the people getting the welfare in those red states are largely Democrats right? That doesn't add up. | ||
|
Funnytoss
Taiwan1471 Posts
On November 12 2012 12:00 sc2superfan101 wrote: you guys do realize that the people getting the welfare in those red states are largely Democrats right? Based on what? Your extensive research into the voting statistics and party identification of those receiving welfare in those particular states? If we're playing with stereotypes anyway, then I'll play along. Do you really think the "conservative trailer park whites clinging to their guns and religion" in Red States are *seriously* voting for the Democratic Party consistently, because they receive welfare? You've gone from fairly reasonable (your post after Obama was elected) to just plain out of touch again. Or perhaps it's your attempt to shape your perception of reality based on your beliefs, rather than your beliefs based on reality? | ||
|
Romantic
United States1844 Posts
Take Mississippi for example. Solid red state because whites are 60% of the population (ish?) and voted 90% Republicanhttp://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/11/10/1159759/-Percent-of-White-vote-won-by-Obama-2012-by-state. Blacks are 30-40% or whatever and vote 95% Democrat and don't have as high turnout. The state as a whole is solid Republican, but the voting patterns are very split basically along racial lines. Black people in Mississippi tend to be less educated and poorer Edit: and more children out of wedlock, early in life, more children etc and I would guarantee receive quite a bit more in per person welfare spending because of that. Pretty sure those numbers are roughly accurate On November 12 2012 12:11 Funnytoss wrote: Based on what? Your extensive research into the voting statistics and party identification of those receiving welfare in those particular states? yep | ||
|
sc2superfan101
3583 Posts
On November 12 2012 12:11 Funnytoss wrote: Based on what? Your extensive research into the voting statistics and party identification of those receiving welfare in those particular states? Or perhaps it's your attempt to shape your perception of reality based on your beliefs, rather than your beliefs based on reality? reading exit polls isn't hard, dude. | ||
|
oneofthem
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
If they integrated there wouldn't be two cultures anymore. first you say 'try multiculturalism' then you define multiculturalism as the worst ever outcome. and migrant groups in the u.s. still are distinct culturally. i have no idea how you got your ideas. | ||
|
Romantic
United States1844 Posts
On November 12 2012 12:22 oneofthem wrote: first you say 'try multiculturalism' then you define multiculturalism as the worst ever outcome. Well, it often wasn't the intent to create something multicultural, so "try" is wrong insofar as you mean try as it was intended, but there are many people out there who openly advocate multiculturalism and not integration or assimilation. | ||
|
oneofthem
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
| ||
|
Tarot
Canada440 Posts
On November 12 2012 12:00 sc2superfan101 wrote: you guys do realize that the people getting the welfare in those red states are largely Democrats right? And yet those in democratic states are usually larger net contributors to federal tax. Funny how that works out  | ||
|
Romantic
United States1844 Posts
On November 12 2012 12:25 oneofthem wrote: yea then that's a different issue from immigration. try not to have your goal post on the moon. I don't understand what you are talking about anymore. Not that I ever did. The results of immigration shouldn't be a separate conversation from immigration. If the results will be bad then obviously that will change your calculation on immigration unless you follow some kind of dogma that demands open borders and the results don't matter at all. Try not to throw out little comments and act dismissive about immigration and multiculturalism when you don't know that assimilation and multiculturalism are in opposition. I'd love to read more of your tidbits but I won't respond to them. | ||
|
BlueBird.
United States3890 Posts
On November 12 2012 12:35 Tarot wrote: And yet those in democratic states are usually larger net contributors to federal tax. Funny how that works out That's the small population of republicans working even harder than their comrades in the south to overcome the destruction and chaos caused by those poor minorities and democrats that are too lazy too get off their bums and contribute. Their comrades in the south don't overcome the smaller percentage of democrats because they aren't at such a numbers disadvantage there, so they aren't as encouraged to make so much money for their country too show they are the best, most american/patriotic people too walk on god's green earth, they simply collectively know they are. | ||
|
sc2superfan101
3583 Posts
On November 12 2012 12:35 Tarot wrote: And yet those in democratic states are usually larger net contributors to federal tax. Funny how that works out it's a case of not looking at the full picture. (disclaimer: I am not saying that all Democrats are on welfare, or that all Republicans are job creators/wealthy) Red states are generally poorer than blue states. there are multiple reasons for this, but it is generally true. and it is true that the poorer red states do receive more in benefits than they put out (I wonder if they add in the auto-bailout numbers, etc.) and the opposite is true in the richer blue states. however, states are not individuals, and just as I could say: "99% of all rapists eat tomatoes!!!" and it's true, it also is a very misleading statistic. especially when you try to imply something with it: (Republicans are the actual welfare queens / eating tomatoes makes you a rapist). the fact is that those people within the red states who are poorest, and thus receive the most benefits, tend to vote Democrat by a pretty wide margin. and those who are richer, and thus receive less benefits, tend to vote Republican. (note, again, that I said tend, not always) among the blue states, the ratio usually stays roughly the same. (also, state taxes be lower in them red states) poor people who get benefits generally vote Democrat, rich people who don't generally vote Republican (though in smaller numbers than in red states). everything gets skewed because those Democrats who are poor in the red states tend to be much poorer than their poor counterparts in the blue states. basically, it's a complete misunderstanding of statistics to think that because Red states receive more in federal benefits, that this holds true on an individual level. | ||
|
Signet
United States1718 Posts
That and loopholes in the tax code are why red states are net recipients of federal transfers while blue states are net payers of federal transfers. | ||
|
Tal
United Kingdom1018 Posts
On November 12 2012 12:04 Romantic wrote: Integration\melting pot =\= multiculturalism. Multiculturalism occurs when immigrants do not integrate. If they integrated there wouldn't be two cultures anymore. Many things influence the ability to assimilate and for a long time the USA did decently or horribly (north vs south culture, led to a war) depending on how you look at it. Most of the immigrants were white and Christian and the federal government wasn't very important, people lived in isolated communities and as long as that held it was... OK. You could be bigoted for a while, then after a few generations the white folk were indistinguishable and it died away. I won't make any arguments about biological problems because I find the entire thing muddled from both sides, but I don't think it is necessary to argue the differences are biological, just that they exist or are believed to exist and they persist. I don't find nations to be natural. What we have is a nation, though, and we'd better damn well use it. I don't see allowing someone in to a "community" to be a default position. I am selective about the people I associate with, date, allow in to my home, who I want to live by (as far as I can tell), etc. No reason why I wouldn't apply this to people being allowed in to a nation. You're describing a failure of integration, which isn't the same as multiculturalism. Multiculuralism (in the positive sense), means having people who integrate into the culture of the country (e.g America), while maintaining their own cultures, thereby adding to the richness of the country. For example Chinese or Irish in America, while taking on American values and in fact moving there because of them, also have their own values and traditions. Basically you can be part of more than one culture, and if you are it can be beneficial to your country. Integrating doesn't mean losing your culture. With that in mind, failure of integration can be a very serious problem, which is generally underplayed by the left. | ||
|
JonnyBNoHo
United States6277 Posts
On November 12 2012 12:35 Tarot wrote: And yet those in democratic states are usually larger net contributors to federal tax. Funny how that works out Doesn't that just reinforce the Republican's position that taxing and spending at the Federal level is less efficient? Ex: an appropriate tax bracket or benefit level in a high cost of living state may be inappropriate in a low cost of living state. | ||
|
sc2superfan101
3583 Posts
| ||
| ||
|
|
PiGosaur Cup
Kung Fu Cup
Replay Cast
The PondCast
KCM Race Survival
OSC
IntoTheTV X SOOP
Reynor vs Solar
ByuN vs SHIN
Clem vs MaxPax
herO vs Rogue
WardiTV Invitational
IPSL
WorsT vs nOmaD
Dewalt vs andersOn
IntoTheTV X SOOP
[ Show More ] |
|
|
EPT
