Does GOP Reflect the US?

[ChrisC]

Originally Posted by youbet

I understand why I do, but I doubt that you would. I've discussed it on the board here before.

I might surprise you -- I'm a hardship case myself.

[ChrisC]

Originally Posted by samclem

What I don't want to do is give the child of a suburb-dwelling wealthy black neurosurgeon preferential treatment over the white child of a poverty-stricken Appalachian coal miner. I can't understand why this is even still a discussion in America.

It's still a topic of discussion because it's seldom as simple as you project; sure that's a relatively easy case for everyone, all things being equal, which seldom, if ever occurs.

[armor99]

Originally Posted by ChrisC

Read up on this issue and stop confusing personal responsibility of individuals with social responsibility for governmental wrongs if you want to slice and dice one strand of the justification for affirmative action initiated by the government. Of course, if you frame the issue the way you did to your friends, you'd get the intended answer -- who in the right mind wants to get something he doesn't deserve, only a moron, correct? I think you tend to oversimplify things with a certain degree of stridency that it truly isn't worth engaging in a discussion with you -- we have to build and build to lay a proper foundation for us to discuss things -- never mind, I'm sorry it's not a project I'm willing to invest.

No problem.... perhaps others here enjoyed what I had to say. The last time I checked though... those big words like government and society are still made up of individuals. Contrary to popular belief, the govt does not have any money of it's own. The only money they get is via taxes from "the people". So if we are to correct "govt wrongs" as you put it, that means the govt is using my money... and that certainly gives me a right to weigh in to that decision. Seems pretty simple to me... but you might be correct... I just might not be educated enough to understand.

[Texarkandy]

Originally Posted by haha

Atheists believe in something. Mostly their own superiority.

Ha

That's insulting and offensive.

[ChrisC]

Originally Posted by armor99

No problem.... perhaps others here enjoyed what I had to say. The last time I checked though... those big words like government and society are still made up of individuals. Contrary to popular belief, the govt does not have any money of it's own. The only money they get is via taxes from "the people". So if we are to correct "govt wrongs" as you put it, that means the govt is using my money... and that certainly gives me a right to weigh in to that decision. Seems pretty simple to me... but you might be correct... I just might not be educated enough to understand.

It's not your money! It loses the character of your money when it goes into the community chest. So, what do you not understand between "your," "my" or "our"? Not a question of education, at all, but you let your political slant obscure common sense. You might be a stakeholder in the government -- we all are -- but to suggest your contribution to financing the operations of the government entitles you to "own" the government or to treat its funds as "your money" is silly; it's what politicians tell you when they want to galvanize support (it's the "taxpayers' money, we're frequently told) over some misguided funding project. It's like me telling you I own the electric company because I pay the electric bill.

And government and society aren't really big words. If the government takes your property we demand just compensation, don't me? We do know where to find the Government, right?

I mentioned reparations, in jest actually, because of the idea that had the Government paid "just compensation" in the modest form of 40 acres and a mule, like some Union Generals actually did, right after the Civil War, we probably wouldn't be having a major discussion over affirmative action. I wasn't at all talking about "you" paying for the sins of your fathers. But you surely wanted it to morph into that discussion.

[armor99]

Originally Posted by ChrisC

You might be a stakeholder in the government -- we all are -- but to suggest your contribution to financing the operations of the government entitles you to "own" the government or to treat its funds as "your money" is silly;

At this point I really must thank you.... this is by far the most amusing thing I have read here in a very long time. I think I laughed for a good 10 minutes. There is just no way to get around how funny that is. I swear I am not trying to be insulting.... although it probably is comming across that way.... but the idea that I and everyone else do not OWN the govt is just... I am left speechless... Thanks for starting my day off right...

[ladelfina]

I don't agree with Chris' elec. co. analogy at all.. but then again I don't think people OWN the government either.. and certainly they don't own it in proportion to the amount of money they are taxed (tho' that seems to be the way it actually does work; it's just that armor99 -for however much of his money he has put in- hasn't reached 'ownership' status.. Admiral shares, as it were.. )

I think the correct view is that people don't own the government, people ARE the government. One person, one vote. You are the change you've been waiting for, yeh?

[ChrisC]

Originally Posted by ladelfina

I don't agree with Chris' elec. co. analogy at all.. but then again I don't think people OWN the government either.. and certainly they don't own it in proportion to the amount of money they are taxed (tho' that seems to be the way it actually does work; it's just that armor99 -for however much of his money he has put in- hasn't reached 'ownership' status.. Admiral shares, as it were.. )

I think the correct view is that people don't own the government, people ARE the government. One person, one vote. You are the change you've been waiting for, yeh?

We have a republican form of government, which encompasses a political structure where citizens actively participate in running the government through a process of electing representatives to manage government on behalf of its citizens. Our republican form of government is based on democratic ideals. "One man, one vote" is a recent aspect of our republican form of government, initiated by the Supreme Court (the most undemocratic part of our government) in the 1960's in Baker v Carr. Saying "people are the government" is just another way of saying that people, in our republican form of government, are stakeholders in the government and have a role in managing their government. And we don't own the government. The Constitution is not a Deed, in our system of government, where ownership has been transferred from someone to someone else.

People can keep thinking they own the government -- it's faulty thinking. Next thing you know they'd want to dissolve government and get their purported ownership shares back!

[youbet]

Originally Posted by ChrisC

People can keep thinking they own the government -- it's faulty thinking. Next thing you know they'd want to dissolve government and get their purported ownership shares back!

I think you're confused between "government" and "a government." Revolution is one way to dissove a particular government.

[ChrisC]

Originally Posted by youbet

I think you're confused between "government" and "a government." Revolution is one way to dissove a particular government.

Hmmmmm, not confused at all -- just poking a little fun at the notion of "owning" the government. There are many ways to dissolve a particular form of government, including revolution, war, succession, conquest, and consent. Unless there is complete anarchy, there must be a government, whatever its form, including theocracies, dictatorships, republics, monarchies, etc. In anarchy, you do "own" something, perhaps a "government" in your own mind. Do you think I'm still confused? Or was it that other guy, who was laughing so loudly?

[Martha]

Originally Posted by samclem

Rural America may save this nation from itself yet again.

I hope not. Rural America is varied, but some communities can be insular and not very welcoming to those who do not look, act or believe the same as the particular community believes. Or at least that was my personal experience.

[youbet]

Originally Posted by Martha

I hope not. Rural America is varied, but some communities can be insular and not very welcoming to those who do not look, act or believe the same as the particular community believes. Or at least that was my personal experience.

Of course, some urban neighborhoods can be insular and not very welcoming to those who do not look, act or believe the same as the particular community believes!

But your point is well taken. I remember one of the most outspoken liberal members of the board (long gone apparently) mentioned the town he lived in, a suburb of Minneapolis. I looked up the demographics. 97% white! What a joke his views turned out to be! A liberal mouth but a closet bigot chosing to live in an insulated suburban community when a wonderful, diverse city was only minutes away!

[Martha]

I have to say that I am a bit prejudiced against living in suburban America. I have all these notions about what people are like there and I think that I would not fit in. Plus, I don't like to drive a whole lot.

[youbet]

Originally Posted by Martha

I have to say that I am a bit prejudiced against living in suburban America. I have all these notions about what people are like there and I think that I would not fit in. Plus, I don't like to drive a whole lot.

The definition of "suburb" is somewhat open as well. Here in the Chi-town area we have rich, white suburbs, predominantly minority poor suburbs, diverse suburbs, suburbs with strong links (including transporation) to Chicago, suburbs where most homes are on five acres and have horses, etc. My own town (suburb really) is just over 50% white. Of the 50% + white population, few are "came on the Mayflower" types. Many are households where the everyday language is Italian, Polish, or Slavic languages. Some days in the grocery store, I never hear anyone around me speaking English! It's a lot of fun and I like it here! But it is, technically, a suburb. I'm sure it's much more diverse than Duluth. I"ll look Duluth up later. I'm packing for a kayak camping trip and DW is about to whack me one for "being on the computer" when I'm supposed to be packing food.

There are suburbs where you'd fit in and suburbs where you wouldn't. Remember, many suburbs of major cities are close in size to Duluth and they vary in character dramatically from one to the other.

[samclem]

Originally Posted by Martha

I hope not. Rural America is varied, but some communities can be insular and not very welcoming to those who do not look, act or believe the same as the particular community believes. Or at least that was my personal experience.

Maybe. Because we tended to move every 2-3 years, we got to live in a lot of different places. When I moved from California (where I grew up) to Mississippi, I was sure I was going to the end of the earth. And, yes, there were differences. But every place I've lived, the folks have been welcoming. If I take my time, respect the local culture (just as I would abroad) and keep hold my judgements about proper/improper until I first understand the reasons for the present situation, I've always gotten along fine.

My experience has been that people in rural areas friendly. If you are in rural Missouri and sit down at a lunch counter, the next person that sits down will likely start a conversation. If you start one, they'll reciprocate. People say 'hello' when they pass each other on the sidewalk. That's an unusual thing in big cities.

[youbet]

Originally Posted by samclem

every place I've lived, the folks have been welcoming. If I take my time, respect the local culture (just as I would abroad) and keep hold my judgements about proper/improper until I first understand the reasons for the present situation, I've always gotten along fine.

.

A wise and open minded way to conduct yourself samclem.

[Enuf]

BE, you've interjected the word "minority". samclem, mentions nothing about minority. Maybe a more careful reading might help and less inference may be in order.

Originally Posted by bright eyed

Well, given that the vast majority of minorities are not participating in the RNC (which was the topic of the OP) and SC said "The GOP should not try to woo those who want to wallow in group victimhood, who take more pride in being a "hyphenated-American" than an "American." They can stay where they are--wherever that is."

And many minorities do enjoy hyphenating themselves - then I think it's not stretch to say that the way he characterized it himself leads to something broader than he may have intended...l

[bright eyed]

Originally Posted by Enuf

BE, you've interjected the word "minority". samclem, mentions nothing about minority. Maybe a more careful reading might help and less inference may be in order.

Sure, if he wasn't talking about minorities, who was he talking about? I don't think I was "reaching" in any way...for goodness sakes. He was trying to "explain away" the lack of racial diversity at the RNC...if that is a legitimate "reason" - then i would argue that the argument is too broad a stroke and actually pretty offensive.

[samclem]

Originally Posted by bright eyed

Sure, if he wasn't talking about minorities, who was he talking about? I don't think I was "reaching" in any way...for goodness sakes. He was trying to "explain away" the lack of racial diversity at the RNC...if that is a legitimate "reason" - then i would argue that the argument is too broad a stroke and actually pretty offensive.

I deliberately did NOT make the distinction based on race, but I think I understand why you inserted the reference to "minorities" even though I didn't:
-- It helps you make your case
-- (Going out on a limb here)You are probably much more likely than I to see individuals as members of racial and other groups, with a set of group identities. I see individuals as individuals. Their identity is not based on skin color or national origin, but how they act and what they believe.

I said: "The GOP should not try to woo those who want to wallow in group victimhood, who take more pride in being a "hyphenated-American" than an "American." They can stay where they are--wherever that is."

Nobody is born into this set of people--it is strictly up to each individual to choose their set of beliefs. I think distinctions based on behaviors and attitudes are more useful than ones based on race/ethnicity. Just like Dr King said.