I found these stats pretty interesting

[Darthvader]

Looks like a lot of people have NO representative in out country:

There's been many changes in these numbers the bulk are close enough. The supposed author did not write this as indicated. But trends do hold water. As an independant these numbers are worrisome. I will be voting out every single incumbant regardless of party affiliations.

OBITUARY​

Born 1776, Died 2008​

It does not hurt to read this several times.
​

Professor Joseph Olson of Hamline University School of Law, St. Paul , Minnesota , points out some interesting facts concerning last November'sPresidential election:
​

• Number of States won by: Democrats: 19 Republicans: 29
• Square miles of land won by: Democrats: 580,000 Republicans: 2,427,000

Population of counties won by: Democrats: 127 million ​

Republicans: 143 million​

Murder rate per 100,000 residents in counties won by:​

Democrats: 13.2 Republicans: 2.1​

Professor Olson adds: "In aggregate, the map of the territory Republicans won was mostlythe land owned by the taxpaying citizens of the country. Democrat territory mostlyencompassed those citizens living in low income tenements and living off various forms of government welfare..."​

Olson believes the United States is now somewhere between the "complacency and apathy" phase of Professor Tyler's definition of democracy, with some forty percent of the nation's population already having reached the "governmental dependency" phase.​

If Congress grants amnesty and citizenship to twenty million criminal invaders called illegals and they vote, then we can say goodbye to the USA in fewer than five years.
​

 

[a_smerek]

I too felt the same way in Canada in the mid 80s. Canada had a massive immigration of people from Pakistan and India. My parents street basically became a two sided street, the lower income side were all these immigrants who were on welfare. Most could not speak a word of english, roasted lambs on the front lawn, hung their clothes on the power lines, etc... It was not a good scene, the stereotype was so true.

What I learned about these people was shocking. Within 2 years many of them had better english grammar than me. They would work at a gas station, a mcdonalds, go to school and then english school. I don't know if they even slept.

Long story short, the majority of them ended up buying the gas stations, the mcdonalds, the low income housing they paid rent with welfare and became the landlords. These people saw opportunity, and took it. Us Canadians just skipped class and played video games, hockey, and smoked pot.

Its funny how the stereotype came full circle. Now Habib will pull up on the same street in his mercedes to collect rent, and Canadians will say, 'those arabs sure have money' when in fact those guys came here penniless and could not even speak our language.

We used to beat their kids up in school and vandalize their homes, and to this day, many are still polite and nice to us, and still want to be friends.

You can't be so quick to look at each person with statistics. There are many people who immigrated to the US with nothing, and gave a lot back to the US. Look at Arnold Schwartzenneger, he came to the US with one suitcase and $20.

There is a fair share of people who suck off a system, and people who legitimately need social assistance. There is no way to draw the line and control who needs it and who abuses it.

Its a tough problem everwhere in the world, the lazy man gets a free ride on the sweat of the hard working man. Sometimes its the foreigner that is sweating and the native man who is lazy, other times vice versa

 

[vrodsss]

I just read where the state of California signed into law - that you can only purchase 1 box of ammunition a month . I was wondering how this would hurt the criminal ? They only need a small amount to cause their harm . The only people I see this hurting is the avid target shooter . I understand that the fine Gov. signed this bill without hesitation . Maybe we can send him to Canada . I'll even donate the suitcase !

 

[a_smerek]

In Canada a criminal will buy an illegal gun. A hunter or sportsman who wants to responsibly use a firearm needs to go through miles of paper work and legal documents to get and use a gun.

Gun control does not work. Plain and simple. All gun control did in Canada was give $3 billion tax dollars to a useless cause that made a massive headache for all sportsmen.

 

[makotosun]

Not to rain on the parade . . .

snopes.com: The Fall of the Athenian Republic

The above quote seems to be lacking in facts. No - I did not add up the totals listed, but since the quote has some different colored text added to it, it draws question. Snopes is a respected fact checking site. Seems this was posted, in slightly different form regarding the Bush-Gore election and disavowed by the professor at that time.

Before jumping the gun, the facts should be carefully checked.

I am not taking any political position on this and allege no allegiance to either side. :3:

 

[Darthvader]

Pointing to the proper sources is mostly what is considered false the underlying data,at least in the big picture,looks to be close enough to matter.

 

[steampick]

Square miles of land? What's that stat got to do with anything?

Anyway, we were all immigrants at one point, and with each succeeding wave of immigrants the same "fear of other" crops up, along with racism. I don't know about the USA, but in Canada, there was great concern over the Northern and Eastern Europeans when they came to settle Western Canada. And then there was the great Asian scare. And then the East Indian, and then, and then, and then.

These countries are founded on immigration, and in Canada there were specific laws (early and even more generous forms of welfare) made to ensure immigrants' transistion was not too dire. That was and is still intentional. Canada was formed on the principle that many differenet people could co-exist while holding onto their heritage and differences in one great big ever-expanding, ever-problematic, ever-negotiating circle of people. This is an Aboriginal philosophy (certainly NOT one inherited by the culturally monolithic Europeans with their weird ideas of racial/nationalistic purity and same-ness), the very people with the most to lose from immigration.

Canada is actually founded upon that kind of outlook (people agreeing to disagree about things in order to retain something of their unique heritage), which we got from the Aboriginals. To my knowledge, this is not now nor ever was the philosophy in the United States. Yes, the whole "give me your poor, tired, and whatever" speech encourages immigration, but the underlying philosophy was once you were in the US, you were now an American.

 

[a_smerek]

The US has always been more of a 'melting pot' system of love America or leave it. In
Canada is more multicultural to a point. One must look at the diverse and ever chaning areas of each country.

A homosexual personal of minority race can freely walk around in south western Ontario. The same may not be true in Red Deer Alberta.

Canada is a large nation, with many different areas. Living in Fort Mcmurray is not the same as Jane and Finch area Toronto

The same is probably true in the US. Living in San Fransisco is probably very different from Malibu, or Knoxville, or Bangor Maine, or Brownsville New York

No real single sterotype can be made true for countries like Canada or the US, where so many things are so different over vast distances of space

 

[steampick]

No real single sterotype can be made true for countries like Canada or the US

Why not? Our attitude towards immigrants (and ourselves) is based on a very unique reality, and has always manifested itself in both our laws and constitutions. Those are real, tangible, binding documents that go a long ways to creating the myth of any country. Our role in international affairs is not like other countries. We are not much like Americans, either, though we try ever so hard to be at times (colonial hangover). To deny these commonalites is odd. I know what you're saying concerning regional attitudes (lack of tolerance for gays in rural regions, to use your example), but I never said we didn't have differences of opinion about things, I'm saying how we ultimately (not immediately) deal with those diffences is unique to us.

 

[Squeebles]

I am not sure what to take from the original quote.

No offense, but even if those facts are all true - it's a little skewed toward one point of view. Reading between the lines, it seems like this is arguing that the current government does not "deserve" to be in power. Which is an oversimplification.

For example, you could easily explain almost all of those trends away by stating that Republicans tend to win more rural parts of the country (most of the US land base) while Democrats do well in states with densely-populated cities (with a higher murder rate). So isn't this much more a commentary on the electoral college system - where you can win a whole state's body of votes, even if you have only one more vote than the other party? Even in recent elections, it cuts both ways. The Republican party did well under this same odd and seemingly outdated system back in 2000, during the hanging chad days.

Not that it will change in our lifetimes. I suspect both parties are quite content with things the way they are...