Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: miko2d on April 16, 2003, 11:06:47 AM
-
(http://www.kimdutoit.com/images/2000emap.jpg)
Murder Rates per 100,000 population (2000):
Gore counties: 11
Bush counties: 2
miko
-
it's not the guns.. it's the bullets
-
11 v 2. Will Gore demand a recount?
-
out of how many total countys?
have a look at the uncredited author from what i can tell.
charming white south-african immegrant fits the conservative slant around here perfectly.
http://www.kimdutoit.com/dr/weblog.php
-
So, LDF, do you imply that the numbers are faked by that guy?
How about a black scholar Walter WilliamsWalter Williams (http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=21050)
What are the characteristics of counties won by Bush versus those won by Gore? The values, politics and religion of the counties in the southern, western and rural sections of the country, won by Bush are not like those in the mostly coastal, highly populated counties won by Gore. The Bush counties are: more conservative and respectful of traditional values, pro-life and more religious, and they have less social pathology such as high crime, illegitimacy and deviancy. Counties won by Gore tend to be just the opposite.
Professor Joseph Olson of Hamline School of Law in St. Paul, Minnesota:
In the Gore counties, the murder rate is 13.2 per 100,000.
In the Bush counties, the murder rate is 2.1 per 100,000.
miko
-
Honest Liberals do not play war games.
-
That's right Yeager. All liberals are pacifists.
-
Originally posted by miko2d
Professor Joseph Olson of Hamline School of Law in St. Paul, Minnesota:
In the Gore counties, the murder rate is 13.2 per 100,000.
In the Bush counties, the murder rate is 2.1 per 100,000.
miko
Is it a weighted average by the counties population or an average of the counties themselves?
Another thing to note is that even a 'Gore county' like Los Angeles, with 10 million people, had more Bush voters than 99% of the other counties in the country and a majority of the states.
-
So true Miko.
-
It's no mystery really. Poorly raised and educated people are more prone to violence and to vote democratic.
-
Holy cause and effect issues, Batman!
First, almost all of the factors listed by Miko (crime, illegitimacy and deviancy) linearly increase with population density. They also linearly decrease with increasing income. The chances are pretty good that you're not going to see a lot of petty crime among people making substantial sums of money, after all. I'm also not sure why the author focuses on ideology rather than partisan affiliation, since party plays a much stronger role in vote choice than ideology. But I digress.
I just grabbed the National Elections Studies cumulative 1948 to 2000 dataset with over 40,000 respondents and regressed ideology (extremely liberal through extremely conservative on a 7-point scale) on income (listed by percentile ranges, scored 1 to 5). For those that know regression, I'm well aware that the dependent variable is not truly continuous, but it's close enough for AH BB work. I find, not unexpectedly, that a one point improvement in income percentile results in a 0.8 point positive change on the ideology scale (t = 9.219, p < 0.001). In essence, the more one makes, the more conservative one becomes.
Why should we be shocked and amazed, then, that those in the lowest income percentiles -- commonly "liberals" living in high density, high crime urban areas -- would support candidates with policy views similar to their own?
Talk about making a mountain out of a molehill. I'd like to see Professor Olson sell that smoldering pile to a group of political scientists.
-- Todd/Leviathn
-
liberals live in big cities... city dwellers have no concept of reality... most have no concept of anything but huge crowds that need to be controlled.
I think that women and city dwellers should not be allowed to vote on anything except their own city issues.
lazs
-
In essence, the more one makes, the more conservative one becomes.
Holy cause and effect issues Batman!
You are inferring a causal relationship from a simple correlation. Tsk tsk tsk.
-
Originally posted by Steve
It's no mystery really. Poorly raised and educated people are more prone to violence and to vote democratic.
what he said
-
Originally posted by Dead Man Flying
Why should we be shocked and amazed, then, that those in the lowest income percentiles -- commonly "liberals" living in high density, high crime urban areas -- would support candidates with policy views similar to their own?
-- Todd/Leviathn
what he said too
-
First, almost all of the factors listed by Miko (crime, illegitimacy and deviancy) linearly increase with population density. They also linearly decrease with increasing income. The chances are pretty good that you're not going to see a lot of petty crime among people making substantial sums of money, after all.
More cause and effect problems.
The same type of character flaws and antisocial tendencies that cause people to have difficulty earning an honest income can also cause people to commit crimes (and to vote for Democrats :) ).
-
Originally posted by funkedup
Holy cause and effect issues Batman!
You are inferring a causal relationship from a simple correlation. Tsk tsk tsk.
Regression tests a theoretically causal relationship. So it's true that one must frame the regression based on theoretically-sound principles -- I could have just as easily argued that income increases as one becomes more conservative. But that just doesn't make any sense. :)
Unless you're arguing that other factors beyond merely income determine ideology, or that this requires structural equation modelling; and of course you'd be right. Many factors determine one's ideological disposition beyond merely income (parents' ideology, peer groups, etc). As income does not correlate very highly with these other factors, we can reasonably expect that the error term contains this unexplained variance rather than biasing income.
-- Todd/Leviathn
-
Originally posted by funkedup
The same type of character flaws and antisocial tendencies that cause people to have difficulty earning an honest income can also cause people to commit crimes (and to vote for Democrats :) ).
I challenge you to operationalize "character flaws" and "antisocial tendencies" in a model, my friend. :)
-- Todd/Leviathn
-
I challenge you to visit a jail or juvenile detention facility and not come out of there thinking that those people would have a hard time earning a living even if they didn't have a record.
-
I think a case could be made that the big cities have liberal ideas about how people should behave and what types of gun control and other laws should be in force... I believe that a case could be made that they screw up their own cities so .....
we shouldn't allow them to make decisons that affect rural people.
lazs
-
Originally posted by funkedup
I challenge you to visit a jail or juvenile detention facility and remain not come out of there thinking that those people would have a hard time earning a living even if they didn't have a record.
I don't doubt it, but I'd be hard pressed to consider it, say, a genetic character flaw.
-- Todd/Leviathn
-
Originally posted by Dead Man Flying
Regression tests a theoretically causal relationship. So it's true that one must frame the regression based on theoretically-sound principles -- I could have just as easily argued that income increases as one becomes more conservative. But that just doesn't make any sense. :)
Unless you're arguing that other factors beyond merely income determine ideology, or that this requires structural equation modelling; and of course you'd be right.
-- Todd/Leviathn
I'm arguing that ideology and income are at least partially determined by intelligence and moral integrity (self control) and social skills.
-
Originally posted by Dead Man Flying
I don't doubt it, but I'd be hard pressed to consider it, say, a genetic character flaw.
-- Todd/Leviathn
Maybe not genetic, but definitely passed on from one generation to the next. Basically what I'm talking about here is addiction. Things like addiction and child abuse are passed on from generation to generation, and most people in prison have sufferred one or both.
-
so everyone agrees? women and big city dwellers should not be allowed to vote?
lazs
-
Originally posted by lazs2
I think a case could be made that the big cities have liberal ideas about how people should behave and what types of gun control and other laws should be in force... I believe that a case could be made that they screw up their own cities so .....
we shouldn't allow them to make decisons that affect rural people.
lazs
I definitely agree with that. Too many "least common denominator" laws in this country. Why should my liberties be restricted just because a few losers can't handle responsibility?
-
Originally posted by lazs2
so everyone agrees? women and big city dwellers should not be allowed to vote?
lazs
skinny city dwellers either :)
-
Originally posted by funkedup
I'm arguing that ideology and income are at least partially determined by intelligence and moral integrity and social skills.
I'm not so sure about ideology (at least directly), but I could see where intelligence, integrity, and social skills would impact on income. The problem, of course, is measuring such things in a nonobtrusive way. You can't just ask someone if they're smart or dumb, and you can't really measure moral integrity or social skills in a poll. The result is something that prima facie makes sense, but there's just no way to test it beyond looking at anecdotal examples.
Any significant impact that intelligence, moral integrity, and social skills would then play on ideology would occur indirectly through income. Measuring that would require a structural model with multiple regression equations, and there's no way in hell I'm investing that kind of energy here. :)
-- Todd/Leviathn
-
Originally posted by Dead Man Flying
Measuring that would require a structural model with multiple regression equations, and there's no way in hell I'm investing that kind of energy here. :)
That's Ph.D.-speak for "OK you win." :D
-
Originally posted by funkedup
Maybe not genetic, but definitely passed on from one generation to the next. Basically what I'm talking about here is addiction. Things like addiction and child abuse are passed on from generation to generation, and most people in prison have sufferred one or both.
I'd be curious to see how addiction corresponds to something like income. Though obviously addicts appear at all income percentiles, the lowest income level appears to contain a disproportionate number of addicts relative to everyone else. I don't think this addiction is a matter of low intelligence, but perhaps it is related to a sense of helplessness (either real or imagined).
OTOH, I have to wonder how many hopelessly addicted criminals actually vote in presidential elections. My guess is pretty few.
-- Todd/Leviathn
-
Originally posted by funkedup
That's Ph.D.-speak for "OK you win." :D
hehe Like hell. :) The important thing to remember about indirect effects is that they'll almost always be less than the direct effect, and it's also possible that those variables have no statistically signficant direct effect on ideology whatsoever. In order to test this, I'd need variables I don't have, and I'd have to dig out books to remember how to test structural equations. Bah!
-- Todd/Leviathn
PS, we're geeks
-
Originally posted by Dead Man Flying
I don't think this addiction is a matter of low intelligence, but perhaps it is related to a sense of helplessness (either real or imagined).
The number one indicator that someone will become an addict is that one of their parents was an addict. It's almost certainly a genetic thing.
-
Originally posted by lazs2
so everyone agrees? women and big city dwellers should not be allowed to vote?
lazs
A lack of response to your suggestion means either:
A. Everyone agrees.
B. The point is too stupid to respond to.
I vote "B"
-
PS, we're geeks
Noooooooooo we are cool guys!!!!
"We're all gonna be three little Fonzies. And what was Fonzie? Cool."
-
OK...where's the stats on white collar crime and the demographics that include frequency/political affiliation/monitary amounts?
You can slant any survey by restricting the kind of data that is input.
The Libs may have a corner on violent crime but I wouldn't say that it's true of non violent crime.
How many innocent people are jailed/executed by corrupt police/prosecuters and what is their party affiliation?
-
Originally posted by funkedup
The number one indicator that someone will become an addict is that one of their parents was an addict. It's almost certainly a genetic thing.
Well, that doesn't indicate genetics necessarily. Parents' partisanship is the number one indicator of a person's partisanship later in life as well, but I doubt you'll find a party gene. It's more a learned behavior, as addiction probably is as well.
-- Todd/Leviathn
-
As a prosecutor of juvenile crime in a poor, rural county, I see lots of indicators of enviroment causing kids to turn out one way or another. Many of these kids never see anyone suceed. Or perhaps even get out of their towns. Their cousins and brothers are in jail so why not them? It's a vicsous circle. No hope, poor education (and what is provided is ignored because they can't see that it will help them), all lead to kids who I'll be seeing a lot of. I can't say if it's becuase they are stupid. I can say they are surrounded by poor, ignorant people and they are living their lives just like them.
Some come in with families that are so screwed up you just wonder why it took them so long to get into trouble with the law. Others have what seems to be a great family system and still in up in court.
-
Dead Man Flying: First, almost all of the factors listed by Miko (crime, illegitimacy and deviancy) linearly increase with population density.
First of all, you are confusing cause and effect. It's the liberal welfare policies that prevent poor and ruin their families from work but facilitate breeding of the most unfit and attract the scum into high-density "cheap" housing of impersonal ilarge cities that both increases population density at thesame time.
They also linearly decrease with increasing income. The chances are pretty good that you're not going to see a lot of petty crime among people making substantial sums of money,
More BS. Some "red" counties are very poor but nowhere close in crime rate to urban inner-city areas.
In a small town people know where their money is wasted on "welfare". When someone needs help, they are much more likely to obtain it through charity or some other personal way ratehr than "no-strings attached" government bureaucracy way.
miko
-
Originally posted by miko2d
First of all, you are confusing cause and effect. It's the liberal welfare policies that prevent poor and ruin their families from work but facilitate breeding of the most unfit and attract the scum into high-density "cheap" housing of impersonal ilarge cities that both increases population density at thesame time.
[/b]
Which came first, the welfare or the poor inner cities? Are you actually arguing that inner cities weren't poor and high crime before Lyndon Johnson pushed through rudimentary welfare policies? Why do you think he was pushing for welfare in the first place?
Welfare in its original, flawed form may have exacerbated things, but to argue that welfare actually caused urbanization and high crime where they didn't already exist is ignorant.
More BS. Some "red" counties are very poor but nowhere close in crime rate to urban inner-city areas.
[/b]
And I wonder what their population densities are relative to urban areas. Now compare those poor rural counties to other, wealthier rural counties with identical population densities and you'll find that the poorer county possesses relatively higher levels of crime almost every time.
In a small town people know where their money is wasted on "welfare". When someone needs help, they are much more likely to obtain it through charity or some other personal way ratehr than "no-strings attached" government bureaucracy way.
That's fine and dandy if it's even true (I know it's not here in North Carolina, but whatever), but it still doesn't make your point at all.
-- Todd/Leviathn
-
The amount of guns availible to the US public does not affect crime rates.
From Guncite.com (http://www.guncite.com/gun_control_gcgvsupp.html)
(http://www.guncite.com/gsupply.gif)
Source: Data points from Gary Kleck (http://www.guncite.com/gcwhoGK.html), Targeting Guns: Firearms and Their Control, Walter de Gruyter, Inc., New York 1997, and FBI Uniform Crime Reports (http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/ucr.htm). (Handgun homicide rates became available in 1966.) [More recent gun suppy figures are available here (http://www.atf.treas.gov/pub/fire-explo_pub/020400report.pdf) and here (http://www.atf.treas.gov/firearms/stats/index.htm).]
Discussion
More guns more crime? More guns less crime? Without the entire picture, one could play all sorts of statistical games with the above data. Depending on the starting year and time frame, we could find "evidence" to support either position. However taking the long view it appears that the gun supply does not have a significant impact on total homicides or suicides. (Since 1945 the handgun per capita rate has risen by over 350% and over 260% for all firearms.)
Kleck in Targeting Guns commenting on the gun stock relationship:
"About half of the time gun stock increases have been accompanied by violence decreases, and about half the time accompanied by violence increases, just what one would expect if gun levels had no net impact on violence rates. The rate of gun suicide is correlated with trends in the size of the gun or handgun stock, but the rate of total suicide is not, supporting a substitution argument--when guns are scarce, suicide attempters substitute other methods, with no effect on the total number who die. Trends in the size of the cumulated gun or handgun stock have no consistent correlation with crime rates."
Incidentally regarding non-lethal violent crime:
Offenders were armed with a firearm in 10% of all violent crimes; a knife in 6% and some other object used as a weapon in 5%.
Offenders used or possessed a weapon in an estimated 27% of overall violent incidents, 8% of rapes/sexual assaults, 52% of robberies, and 25% of assaults.
Source: Bureau of Justice Statistics, Criminal Victimization in the United States, 1993, May 1996 (http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/pub/ascii/cvus93.txt).
Why is violent crime decreasing?
The FBI lists many major contributing factors to violent crime in their 1997 FBI Uniform Crime Report (http://www.guncite.com/gcgfbirc.html).
As for the declining violent crime rate over the last several years:
"There is, at present, little consensus among criminologists, legal analysts and law enforcement officials about the explanation or causes of the decrease. Possible explanations include: increase in the incarceration rate; community based policing; changes in drug markets; aging of the criminal population; and cyclical trends in the homicide rate." (Conference announcement: Why is Crime Decreasing, Northwestern University School of Law).
Reporting a record 7-year plunge in crime rates a Los Angeles Times news article stated:
"Law enforcement experts credited a variety of factors, including a booming economy and declining unemployment, greater attention to community-based policing, more prison beds and tougher sentencing in some areas through measures such as California's 'three strikes' law. But they stressed that no one factor can explain the downward spiral" (May 17, 1999, p. A6)
Excerpted from the abstract of the Koch Crime Institute's (http://www.guncite.com/gcgfbirc.html) paper, The Falling Crime Rate (April 1998) (http://www.kci.org/publication/white_paper/falling_crime/toc.htm):
"The consensus on the falling crime rate is that there is no singular event, policy implementation, or social action that can account for the decrease during the last six years. Individuals and organizations assessing the cause and implications of this decline are arriving at a unified theory attributing collective efforts and change as the reason or reasons."
The Chicago Tribune reported a surprising finding:
"Two widely respected scholars studying the causes of the declining U.S. crime rate, one of the intriguing social puzzles of the decade, have reached a provacative conclusion: Legalizing abortion in early 1970s eliminated many of the potential criminals of the 1990s..."
"Steven Levitt, a University of Chicago economist, and John Donohue III, a Stanford University Law professor, conclude that legalized abortion may explain as much as half of the overall crime reduction the nation experienced from 1991 to 1997..."
"[T]he authors conclude that the women who chose abortion were those at greatest risk for bearing children who would have been most likely to commit crimes as young adults. These women are teen-agers, minorites and the poor--all groups of women who have abortions at higher rates than the overall population of women of childbearing age..."
t is not simply who has the abortion that leads to the lower crime rate...but the ability of the woman to choose better timing for childrearing that lowers criminality." (Los Angeles Daily News, August 8, 1999, pp. 1, 18)
What about the Brady Bill and other gun control measures?
Didn't the Brady Bill play a big part in reducing gun crime? See GunCite's analysis of that claim (http://www.guncite.com/gun_control_brady_bill.html).
Four scholars discuss "Does Gun Control Work?" (http://www.pbs.org/thinktank/show_210.html) in PBS's moderated panel discussion, Think Tank (aired June 3, 1995).
What can be done about violent crime?
To read where enforcement of the numerous, already existing laws is working and achieving dramatic results in reducing gun related violence and homicide, without additional gun control laws, see enforcing the laws we already have (http://www.guncite.com/gun_control_gcagenfo.html).
-
PS, I'm not taking a position on abortion by posting this. What I am showing is that guns do not equal crime. I'll let the sociologists, criminologists and all the other -ologists argue about why.
-
Originally posted by Steve
It's no mystery really. Poorly raised and educated people are more prone to violence and to vote democratic.
Or fly dweebstangs:p
Lol, I know, i'll pay for that.
Your right. I was raised by a single mom(god bless her, the things we put her through), and was always taught(is that a word?) right from wrong from a very young age. "God sees everything you do, and you can lie to me, but you can't lie to him, he is with you all the time". It must have worked. I grew up in a poor part of revere by the beach(which is now prime real estate) and knew alot of shady characters. The car theives even had their own union, CTA(Car Thieves of America). But I always knew better than to get involved with that and alot of the stuff that went on. And I think it had to with an involved parent. That and having the brains to know better.
-
Originally posted by Dead Man Flying
Well, that doesn't indicate genetics necessarily. Parents' partisanship is the number one indicator of a person's partisanship later in life as well, but I doubt you'll find a party gene. It's more a learned behavior, as addiction probably is as well.
-- Todd/Leviathn
I should have been more clear. There are a lot of indications that the addiction/alcoholism tendencies are genetic. Some psych friends of mine worked for a few years on a project regarding this, and talking with them convinced me.
Basically you have a reward center in your brain which motivates you to feed it. Normally it rewards you for doing survival related things. Eating, sleeping, screwing, etc. People with "the gene" have a very sensitive reward center. They get a little bit of the drug and their reward center goes nuts. The brain wants more, and motivates them (chemical) to get it. The motivation is at such a basic and strong level that it surpasses the motivation to do the normal survival activities.
Obviously there are external factors (environment) which influence whether people try the drugs for the first time. But for the people with "the gene", once they try it and get a little momentum going, they get hooked far more easily than a "normal" person. And once all of the reward/survival systems in the brain are messed up like that, the only thing that can fix it is detox and recovery (e.g. 12 step).
-
I agree that there are some crimes that appear genetic. Especially after watching a co-worker convict a juvenile who was a third-generation child molestor.
-
Originally posted by funkedup
I should have been more clear. There are a lot of indications that the addiction/alcoholism tendencies are genetic. Some psych friends of mine worked for a few years on a project regarding this, and talking with them convinced me.
Cool. I have no problems with the idea that propensity toward addiction is genetic. Couple that with an environment that breeds addiction, and you've got a recipe for disaster.
-- Todd/Leviathn
-
Originally posted by funkedup
Noooooooooo we are cool guys!!!!
"We're all gonna be three little Fonzies. And what was Fonzie? Cool."
Sit on it Funked.
:p
-
DMF I did a huge edit, sorry. I think it just reinforces your reply anyways.
Sirloin: Step Into My Office!!!
-
So, does this mean that Gore invented crime?
-
Crime is not always disproportionate to low-income people. Certain types of crime, yes--and certainly the most visible types of crime (like assault or robbery or murder/manslaughter)--but there are plenty of crimes which tend to be overwhelmingly comitted by people who are NOT suffering financial hardship (say computer fraud for example, or insider trading, or embezzelment, or malfeasance or such crimes). The more "violent" crimes tend to be commited by people with low incomes most likely because a poor criminal doesn't have the tools available to commit the more sophisticated types of crimes. If don't have a computer to crack into the target's bank accounts, you can still break his legs and steal his wallet.
Then there's other crimes that are pretty common through all income levels, such as domestic violence. Of course the image-conscious wealthy are less likely to report such crimes which will skew statictics.
Another thing which will skew the statictics is the statistics are usually based on CONVICTIONS, not as much on cases filed--and it is a simple fact that the wealthy can get better legal representation than the poor can. This isn't right from a moral standpoint, but like it or not that's how it is.
Crime is a big problem. But calling it just a "poor" problem means turning a blind eye to some of the worst crimes comitted.
J_A_B
-
Jab, the post was about murder rates.. I added"violent crime"
and yes.. viloent crimes are immensely more prevalent among the poor.
-
Originally posted by AKIron
So, does this mean that Gore invented crime?
LOL:)
-
Depends on the type of violent crime Steve. As I noted above, some crimes like Domestic Violence commonly occur throughout all income levels, and in all parts of the country.
It is a fallacy to "prove" that crime is "caused by liberals" by using as evidence a single crime that tends to happen mainly in urban areas, all the while knowing that those same urban areas tend to fall more on the liberal end of the political spectrum. Use a different crime, like DV, and poof--the "evidence" just evaporates.
In my opinion liberals don't cause crime, criminals do. That and complacency.
J_A_B
-
you can really get some interesting results if you show white homicide rates in the U.S. vs gun ownership and then do black homicide vs ownership. That would not bew fair tho if you used legal guns as "ownership" but I don't know how else you could do it.
lazs
-
Originally posted by lazs2
so everyone agrees? women and big city dwellers should not be allowed to vote?
lazs
That is an interesting idea, as long as we didn't have to pay taxes either.
However, that would leave us with a military that could be beaten by Canada's.
-
so everyone agrees? women and big city dwellers should not be allowed to vote?
I like the idea.. and who says they don't have to pay taxes !!!
tax the hell out of the FOR living in the city !!! :)
-
I didn't say anything about liberals causing crime. I said poorly educated, poorly raised people are more prone to commit violent crimes. You are going to pick a specific violent crime? Gimme a break. Look, you may not like it because it goes against what you would like to believe but this is a fact: violent crime is more prevalent in low income areas than otherwise and low income areas tend to vote democratic. You actually said "depends on the type of crime." We are talking about violent crime here, and the evidence is indesputable. Let's assume that one specific type of violent crime is equally spread across all income levels.... let's go with your domestic violence.
Let's see, does it change my original statement at all, which was:Poorly raised and educated people are more prone to violence and to vote democratic." ?
No it doesn't.
-
"If fewer guns meant a safer society, then England and Canada would be the safest countries in the world. They aren't."
Wlfgang, both are safer than America overall.
Reading through this thread. I've come to two conclusions:
If the poor and badly educated are the most violent then the relatively easy availability of guns in America just makes it worse.
If the poor and badly educated are the most violent? Wouldn't it be a good idea at the very least improve the education system so that they can get jobs and stop being poor so that one day they can grow up and buy a gun to protect their home from the poorly educated.
The best welfare system is a good education.
Just a thought.
Guns don't kill people, people kill people?
No people with guns kill people. People without guns have to use their imagination!
-
Originally posted by Steve
low income areas tend to vote democratic.
Unions are more likely to vote democratic too. Electricians,masons,capenters, etc. Democrats tend to support higher wages where repubs tend to support lower wages. So of course low income areas will vote democratic. When you see a minimum wage dispute is a case in point. So if you are working at or near minimum wage, you will support the party who wants to raise it.
As for violent criminals, I'de say 99% don't even vote(or even care)
-
Originally posted by cpxxx
The best welfare system is a good education.
Amen. My mom went through job training instead of welfare. She got a job at raytheon where she worked for years.(count her in on dems for military spending)
BTW, still have my "patriot missile tour" t-shirt from '91'
-
The reason that the young, the union members, the minorities and the poor vote democrat is.... because they are the ones most likely to feel that they will get something for nothing... they are also the ones least likely to want to blame themselves for their situation... human nature... they are also the most familiar with entitlements.
lazs
-
cpxxx it was for beetle :)
besides, they still are NOT the SAFEST places..
The best welfare system is a good education.
amen
-
Democrats tend to support higher wages where repubs tend to support lower wages.
Democrats tend to support government edict where Republicans tend to support free markets.
ra
-
Originally posted by lazs2
The reason that the young, the union members, the minorities and the poor vote democrat is.... because they are the ones most likely to feel that they will get something for nothing... they are also the ones least likely to want to blame themselves for their situation... human nature... they are also the most familiar with entitlements.
lazs
When I was 16 I got a job working for the Fore River Railroad. They were a small company that bought out a piece of Conrail that ran through the Fore river shipyard and through braintree. We had no heavy equipment and everything had to be done by hand. We had 80lbs digging bars with pigs feet at the end to pry out the old spikes. We had what were like ice tongs to carry away the old rail away.To drive the new spikes we had to guys sit on digging bars to hold the tie and plate to the rail. 2 other guys would drive the spikes by hand half way, then another guy with a jackhammer(special bit) would drive them the rest of the way. It was chain gang work in a nutshell(but good pay)
At one point we worked 30 days straight and we worked 12-14 hour days. I got burns from the creosote on the ties(the sun would hit it and it would burn your skin) The track had to be done by the winter. I took home almost $800 one week. I was the oldest and mom didn't have much money so a good chunk of it went to her. We all got new clothes for school out of the deal.
Worked as a loborer for a long time and then put up fences(chain link & wood). At 30 I took the post office exam(should have done that a long time ago!) My money says I worked harder than you by the age of 20 than you have your whole life. Laborers, carpenters, masons, electricians, ironworkers, pipefitters...something for nothing? Sorry they built this country with their bare hands. Something for nothing? I think that would be the execs at Enron who are stealing people's pensions. Also the ones who are most likely to vote republican.
BTW, I've not collected one unemplyment check in my life. During the recession back in '91', I traveled to Jax, fl. to work(we had 10% unemployment and couldn't buy a job here)
Sell that garbage somewhere else plz.
-
Originally posted by cpxxx
If the poor and badly educated are the most violent? Wouldn't it be a good idea at the very least improve the education system so that they can get jobs and stop being poor so that one day they can grow up and buy a gun to protect their home from the poorly educated.
-------WARNING! Thread hijack attempt in progress-------
It would indeed be a good idea. The inability to enforce discipline in public schools, especially inner city schools, is a very big reason why kids aren't learning and good teachers are getting harder and harder to find. I blame the libs, so as Johnny Storm usta say, flame on!
-
Originally posted by AKIron
-------WARNING! Thread hijack attempt in progress-------
The inability to enforce discipline in public schools, especially inner city schools, is a very big reason why kids aren't learning and good teachers are getting harder and harder to find.
We had a clone of Dick Butcus as vice principal, his footsteps would strike fear in us.
-
Originally posted by Wlfgng
cpxxx it was for beetle :)
besides, they still are NOT the SAFEST places..
amen
Hehe Wolfgang. I've joined this thread late, but a couple of observations - already noted by some. Big though the US may be, it is not the biggest country on the planet and is not representative of the rest of the world. It has only 5% of the world's population, and its land area as a proportion of the earth's surface is minute. Looking at the map on the first post, it is clear that the original argument pertains to the US, and to no other country. So the "argument", if I may call it that, is skewed by incomplete data from the start.
As for "guns not killing people, only people kill people", it's a hollow argument when one looks at crime patterns in countries where there are far fewer privately owned guns. Lazs is right and the gun crime amongst poor black areas is much, much higher than in middle class white suburbia. Just look at Chicago! Many (about 20) years ago, I saw a British TV documentary about the Cook County Hospital, a hospital to which you can go even without medical insurance, and few poor blacks have got Blue Cross/Blue Shield as I had, along with probably most Americans reading this. In 1980 I lived in Chicago - correction: I lived in the middle class white suburb of Mount Prospect, and I could relate to what was said in the documentary. And one of the startling facts presented was that the most common form of complication amongst pregnant women was not excessive water retention or an ectopic condition. It was gunshot wounds. :eek:
It's simple. For gun crime to be possible, there has to be a gun. So the more guns, the more gun crime. Socially deprived areas of ethnic minorities are not strictly an American phoenomenon. We have them here in Britain. But what we don't have is the guns to go with it. Figuratively speaking, we have the powder keg but fewer sparks. And we don't have thousands and thousands of people killed by guns each year. The annual tally is something between 50 and 75. If we had no guns at all, this figure would be zero.
That would leave "sharp objects"! But because of their cumbersome nature, a gun is the preferred weapon of choice for someone who wants to do someone else in. Besides. The TOTAL number of murders in Britain each year is around 700-800 - far less than just the gun related homicides in America.
If we were to allow the proliferation of privately owned guns here, then like America we would have thousands of gun homicides. (And most would be in socially deprived areas/ethnic minorities. Suburbs and the rural areas would be largely unaffected) But we haven't, and so we don't.
Got to rush - Mum is expecting us for Easter, so...
Toodle-Pip with an egg on it! :)