Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
unfortunately, that is probably really close to the truth.
No, it's actually false and without merit.
The demographics actually revealed that party affiliation, political ideology, frequency of attending worship services and age were the driving forces behind the measure’s passage, not race, which proves my point that the state is still conservative despite what the major metro areas seem to reflect.
Location: On the "Left Coast", somewhere in "the Land of Fruits & Nuts"
8,852 posts, read 10,456,964 times
Reputation: 6670
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fontucky
I can't believe I'm standing up for Republicans, because I ain't one... but when it comes to racial segregation, certain Democrats aren't exactly misty-eyed virgins. An example: Let's not forget these famous words, uttered by a well-known Democrat from the great state of Alabama:
"In the name of the greatest people that have ever trod this earth, I draw the line in the dust and toss the gauntlet before the feet of tyranny, and I say segregation now, segregation tomorrow, segregation forever!"
And as long as we're dredging up the mists of time, let's not forget what party was in power when the slaves were freed.
I could go on, but I'm sure you get my point.
Then you may remember it was also another Democrat, President John F. Kennedy, who federalized the Alabama National Guard, and forced Gov. George Wallace to back down from preventing those two black students from entering the U of Alabama.
Although, I think your buddy Limbaugh sums up the current GOP attitude towards blacks quite nicely, “They’re 12 percent of the population. Who the hell cares?”
Oh, of course, because as we all know, there aren't any anti-(insert race here) racists in the ranks of the Democratic party. Also no Blacks who don't like Latinos, and vice-versa. It's all hearts, flowers and holding hands 'round the campfire singing Kum-Bye-Ya while passing the big fatty around, everyone reveling in their differences and exchanging recipes of their abuelita's posole, their momma's greens and necks, or their Aunt Gertrude's meat loaf.
"Wake up and smell the coffee", as Ann Landers used to say. Or was it Abigail Van Buren?
Fontucky, my friend, you have lived in California all your life. There was a huge shift Left for Latinos when Prop 187 passed almost 20 yrs ago. The Hispanic community does not forget who was leading the call to rid California of illegal immigrants in a way that was so inhumane that the court stepped in before it could be implemented. It was governor Wilson, in a desperate gamble to win the election who spearheaded the proposition. From that time onward Latinos vote Democratic almost in the same numbers that Blacks do. There are a lot of articles about this event on the Internet. The result has crippled the Republican party in California. Karl Rove warned that this would happen and other Republican leaders like then governor Bush of Texas cautioned Wilson to not rally behind Prop 187. They were right.
You just couldn't resist that shot, could you? As soon as a discussion takes a turn, in this case a left turn, down Argumentum Ad Hominem Blvd, I bug out. Aydeeos mewchaycho.
Fontucky, my friend, you have lived in California all your life. There was a huge shift Left for Latinos when Prop 187 passed almost 20 yrs ago. The Hispanic community does not forget who was leading the call to rid California of illegal immigrants in a way that was so inhumane that the court stepped in before it could be implemented. It was governor Wilson, in a desperate gamble to win the election who spearheaded the proposition. From that time onward Latinos vote Democratic almost in the same numbers that Blacks do. There are a lot of articles about this event on the Internet. The result has crippled the Republican party in California. Karl Rove warned that this would happen and other Republican leaders like then governor Bush of Texas cautioned Wilson to not rally behind Prop 187. They were right.
And earlier than that, Barry Goldwater said that the GOP's future depended upon attracting Latinos as well as Asians and Jews, due to the strong tradition of entrepeneurship and family business amongst Jews, Latinos, and Asians.
The California Latino Republican Caucus and certain GOP circles in San Diego were not pleased by Wilson's support for 187, including a conservative talk show host in San Diego who threatened to "out" Wilson. (While there's no evidence of Wilson being gay or bi, all three of his marriages were to wealthy older women and he never had children. That doesn't count as enough to prove someone's gay or bi, but it did produce some vicious rumor mongering in some circles.)
Fontucky, my friend, you have lived in California all your life. There was a huge shift Left for Latinos when Prop 187 passed almost 20 yrs ago. The Hispanic community does not forget who was leading the call to rid California of illegal immigrants in a way that was so inhumane that the court stepped in before it could be implemented. It was governor Wilson, in a desperate gamble to win the election who spearheaded the proposition. From that time onward Latinos vote Democratic almost in the same numbers that Blacks do. There are a lot of articles about this event on the Internet. The result has crippled the Republican party in California. Karl Rove warned that this would happen and other Republican leaders like then governor Bush of Texas cautioned Wilson to not rally behind Prop 187. They were right.
I am not a fan of wilson espec after he did a 180 on signing AB 101 (gay employment rightsbill) after he said that he would not sign it. But he was right about 187. People need to remember that we are talking about illegals and the children of illegals simply proving legitimacy to receive gov't services. Those of us who work in healthcare (I was an insurance salesman at the time) saw the excessive use of public services for ppl who pay little taxes, but receive a multitude of services that the taxpayers are paying for. sure enough, the illegals have helped to bankrupt and overcrowd what was once a high quality of life place to live.
It's sad, but those immigrants that you want gays to support voted AGAINST gays based on the beliefs of the backwards Catholic/muslim countries that they came from.
I am not a fan of wilson espec after he did a 180 on signing AB 101 (gay employment rightsbill) after he said that he would not sign it. But he was right about 187.
The UC Berkeley law professors who drew up 187 originally included a section that would have jailed the employers of illegals.
Wilson said that his support for 187 was contingent on that section being removed - given that would have greatly angered the agricultural industry.
187 as it appeared on the ballot would have done nothing to actually keep illegals out of the state. It's jobs, not services, that are the big draw. Like so many California ballot measures, 187 was more of a "feel good" type of proposition for those who voted for it, i.e. "bad law is better than no law". Unfortunately this mentality is all too prevalent amongst the California voter, from 187 to Newsom's gun ban initiative (which was blatantly unconstitutional and struck down like 187) to Jessica's Law (which only made the sex offenders disappear into the ranks of the homeless and made them HARDER to track) to Proposition 13 (which is the REAL root cause of the state's problems right now and whose opponents were the ONLY people who predicted what would happen to the state in 30 years time back then) to what-have-you.
Those of us who are educated in politics, history, and/or law know very well that bad law is NOT better than no law. Unfortunately, that does not describe the typical California voter then or now, even many college educated California voters.
Quote:
People need to remember that we are talking about illegals and the children of illegals simply proving legitimacy to receive gov't services. Those of us who work in healthcare (I was an insurance salesman at the time) saw the excessive use of public services for ppl who pay little taxes, but receive a multitude of services that the taxpayers are paying for. sure enough, the illegals have helped to bankrupt and overcrowd what was once a high quality of life place to live.
So those who voted for 187 viewed themselves as "defenders of the welfare state"? I really don't think so. If not for 13 the illegals could have been assimilated easily. Remember in the 1940s some people in California thought that Okies were unassimilable and MANY people in California thought Asians were unassimilable.
Quote:
It's sad, but those immigrants that you want gays to support voted AGAINST gays based on the beliefs of the backwards Catholic/muslim countries that they came from.
Analyses of Latino voters regarding Prop 8 did show that older Latinos and immigrants were more likely to vote for 8 than young US born Latinos. The Latino vote did go for 8 as did the Asian vote but by smaller margins than the African-American vote - last minute activism by the anti-8 campaign helped keeped the margins down. The No on 8 campaign did screw up royally when it came to campaigning in African-American communities. They did not contact African-American gay groups in L.A. nor did they make any efforts to reach out to older African-American politicians in L.A. with good records on gay rights who could have swayed older blacks, such as Mervyn Dymally, Maxine Waters, and Diane Watson. Contrast this to Harvey Milk's organization of the anti-Briggs Amendment campaign - Milk got Tom Bradley, Dymally, and various other African-American politicians in SoCal involved in his campaign and reached out to black gay groups across the state. Another reason why the results on 8 could've been different with a better campaign. (As I lived in L.A. in '08 I don't know how 8 fared in black neighborhoods in the Bay Area, but the only African-American neighborhoods in L.A. County that voted against 8 were Ladera Heights and Windsor Hills, both very influenced by the entertainment industry and which have very high income and educational levels.)
As for Muslims: I really don't know. Most of California's Muslims IMO seem to be moderate to liberal in their religious beliefs and came to California to get away from the BS in their countries. (Notorious California jihadis like John Walker Lindh, Adam Gadahn, and Yusuf Bey are converts with no family roots in the Islamic world.)
So does that mean that San Diego county people "don't work" all of a sudden since they became a Democratic county? Or that San Bernardino & Riverside counties want government to fix everything? How do you explain the common ground with Kern\ King\ Tulare\ Butte counties [all agricultural counties with relatively small towns in remote hot inland California?
Something I wouldn't be proud of unless you are more yahoo than Californian.
Does the government fear us? Or do we fear the government? When the people fear the government, tyranny has found victory. The federal government is our servant, not our master! -Thomas Jefferson
They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.
- Benjamin Franklin
These two quotes pretty much sum up the difference between the two parties. Democrats want to give up liberty to be guaranteed safety, Republicans choose to work hard and create their own prosperity and believe in the basic foundation on which this country was founded.
James Madison "The father of the Constitution" had this to say about government, "The powers delegated.to the federal government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the state governments are numerous and indefinite. The former will be exercised principally on external objects, [such] as war, peace, negotiation, and foreign commerce..The powers reserved to the several states will extend to all the objects which, in the ordinary course of affairs, concern the lives, liberties, and properties of the people."
So what would our Founding Fathers think of Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, Obamacare, etc, etc? It's pretty simple, they all go against the constitution and the principles on which our country was founded. Every Democrat I've ever met loves these programs (and some Republicans) but a true conservative despises them. The power to implement those programs was only supposed to be implemented by the states, NOT the federal gov't.
Last edited by hskrfan2187; 06-21-2010 at 06:31 PM..
Does the government fear us? Or do we fear the government? When the people fear the government, tyranny has found victory. The federal government is our servant, not our master! -Thomas Jefferson
They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.
- Benjamin Franklin
These two quotes pretty much sum up the difference between the two parties. Democrats want to give up liberty to be guaranteed safety, Republicans choose to work hard and create their own prosperity and believe in the basic foundation on which this country was founded.
So only Democrats voted in favor of the Patriot Act and it was signed into law by a Democratic president? Only Democrats supported the Military Commissions Act and the RAVE Act? Bush was a Democrat? News to me.
Quote:
James Madison "The father of the Constitution" had this to say about government, "The powers delegated.to the federal government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the state governments are numerous and indefinite. The former will be exercised principally on external objects, [such] as war, peace, negotiation, and foreign commerce..The powers reserved to the several states will extend to all the objects which, in the ordinary course of affairs, concern the lives, liberties, and properties of the people."
State's rights can be used by both conservatives and liberals. When it comes to marijuana, gay rights, and environmental issues, many on the left appreciate the Founders' advocacy of state's rights and federalism.
Quote:
So what would our Founding Fathers think of Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, Obamacare, etc, etc?
Hard to say. The problems of that era were different from those of our own. That's the problem with the most vulgar type of originalism.
Quote:
It's pretty simple, they all go against the constitution and the principles on which our country was founded.
With the exception of Obamacare, those programs could be justified by the General Welfare Clause.
Obamacare (IMO) is unconstitutional as the federal government has no power to force people to buy a private service, however a single payer health care system would be perfectly constitutional under the Tax Clause. Even Virginia AG Ken Cuccinelli admits this (although he said he does not support single payer health care, he did say it was constitutional on an NPR interview).
So only Democrats voted in favor of the Patriot Act and it was signed into law by a Democratic president? Only Democrats supported the Military Commissions Act and the RAVE Act? Bush was a Democrat? News to me.
State's rights can be used by both conservatives and liberals. When it comes to marijuana, gay rights, and environmental issues, many on the left appreciate the Founders' advocacy of state's rights and federalism.
Hard to say. The problems of that era were different from those of our own. That's the problem with the most vulgar type of originalism.
With the exception of Obamacare, those programs could be justified by the General Welfare Clause.
Obamacare (IMO) is unconstitutional as the federal government has no power to force people to buy a private service, however a single payer health care system would be perfectly constitutional under the Tax Clause. Even Virginia AG Ken Cuccinelli admits this (although he said he does not support single payer health care, he did say it was constitutional on an NPR interview).
I mentioned that many Republicans are misinformed as well. In fact I've debated with some Republicans that are outraged by the idea that I said we should abolish Social Security. Yet these same Republicans cry "socialism" when Obama was shoving Healthcare down our throats talk about hypocrisy at its greatest (and I'm a Republican, obviously). They are both socialist programs, you can't have one and think it's ok but cry foul when the other is proposed. Don't even get my started on the patriot act, Bush (in my opinion) should be ashamed to even call himself a Republican. He was a politician in the greatest sense (much like our current president). People who have agendas and do whatever it takes to get re-elected. Career politicians are the biggest cancer on the system.
I will admit, I shouldn't have generalized so much in my original post. I'm sure there are plenty of Democrats I could agree with and clearly plenty of Republicans I disagree with. I know when it comes to equality (in the form of human rights) and environmental friendliness I am extremely left. But in my opinion these same things are those that the constitution supports. In this country every person should have a right to free speech, marry who they want, and become what they want. No force or government should force them to do otherwise.
Now you mentioned that we are in a different era now. Are we? If by different era you mean the world population is larger, and the technology is greater then yes we are in a new era. But just like the laws of physics don't change over time, neither do the laws of economics. They preached a "new era" in the 1920's and we ended up having the worst depression in our history. People preached a new era during the dot com bubble but that collapsed and we should have had a severe recession but Bush and Greenspan pushed that recession off to a later date with deficit spending, stimulus, and lower interest rates (sound familiar?). So that narrow recession in the early 2000's should have been greater. During that recession we had the largest consumer spending spree in American history. Americans came out of that "recession" in greater debt than they went into it with. That's not a recession, that's a boom. A recession is a slow down (or contraction) of the economy because people quit spending and save to pay off their debts. A boom is when people recklessly spend money and borrow themselves into oblivion resulting in a false economic growth signal that must later be retracted. In fact what Obama is doing, currently has Americans sitting in greater debt than we went into this recession with. The piper will be paid, and he's doing a great job of trying to kick the can down the road much like Bush did. Anyway, I could go on and on but my main point is the fundamentals of how things operate don't change in time even though the people are different and the years are different.
So the year is different, the population is greater, but don't fall into that trap of thinking we are in a "new era." "Absolute power corrupts, absolutely." That phrase doesn't change just because the year is different. Just like the laws of math don't change over time, just like the laws of the universe don't change over time. Human behavior reacts the same generation after generation. And economic forces act the same over time, just because we learn more about these things and create faster computers doesn't mean it changes how they have always operated.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
