CNN/Money Magazine's Top American Neighborhoods

[FaninAma]

http://money.cnn.com/magazines/moneymag/best-places/2013/snapshots/CS2560785.html

Can anyone discern what the common denominator is in most of these locations?

[Turd_Ferguson]

Honkey's?

[Lott's Bandana]

Not sure what you're implying, but one guess would be: large amount of Money Magazine subscribers?

[FaninAma]

Not sure what you're implying, but one guess would be: large amount of Money Magazine subscribers?

Yeah, that's got to be it...especially when other magazines like Forbes and the WSJ have similiar findings. And I'm not implying anything. The demographic statistics speak for themselves.

[yermom]

rich people?

[yermom]

Yeah, that's got to be it...especially when other magazines like Forbes and the WSJ have similiar findings. And I'm not implying anything. The demographic statistics speak for themselves.

like this from #1?


Sharon's schools are a big draw for families. So is its diversity. The town has seven synagogues, nine churches, and one of New England's largest Islamic mosques. Nearly 30% of students in public school are nonwhite, and 18% speak a language other than English at home.

i didn't know you were such a big fan of diversity ;)

[okie52]

almost all of the top 25 are northern states.

[KantoSooner]

Other than Paillion, NE, the top ten are characterized by:

1. Beautiful Environs
2. High Tech Jobs

Since High Tech companies can essentially locate whereever they want to, they tend to create their 'campuses' in pretty areas. They then hire people with advanced degrees, at high salaries, to come work there.

So, you start with a nice place, you add a ready made tax base and relocate well educated, well to do, working age people into the nice place. Poor/dysfunctional and old people are diluted as a percentage of the population and you've still got whatever natural charm the place had to start with.

I wouldn't make more of this than there is.

Plus, if you're dealing with tech, you'll find that a disproportinate percentage of the workforce tends to be Asian...which might not fit into the the-community-must-be-WASP-to-succeed argument.

[okie52]

Really? Southern cities just don't match up? I find the disproportionate representation of the south and southwest ridiculous.

[Bourbon St Sooner]

They're all staid, boring places where the people and houses all look the same? I mean, I'm sure the Apex, NC jazz festival is quite a hootenanny though.

[Tulsa_Fireman]

WHEAH ALL DE WHITE WIMMEN AT

[okie52]

Yeah, really not much to offer....and yet the south and southwest are the growth areas...go figure?

[diverdog]

http://money.cnn.com/magazines/moneymag/best-places/2013/snapshots/CS2560785.html

Can anyone discern what the common denominator is in most of these locations?

They are in the north. I will bet they have healthy lifestyles and access to great parks.

[Tulsa_Fireman]

Not to mention ZERO pork rinds.

Not a pork rind to be found in paradise.

[diverdog]

In fairness to Fanin I did a lot of traveling the last two weeks including visiting Sharon and other NE towns that routinely make the list. This is a text I sent to a friend when I was in Burlington VT.


.I hate saying this but it is amazing how nice towns are without a large poor black population. The only diversity in Burlington is gay business owners.

I wish this was not true but in my travels there seem to be some common trends to nice places to live...they are for the most part in northern climates, people are outdoorsee, good work ethics, focused on community, education counts and not much diversity. I suspect for the most part it is the harsh winters that causes the lack of diversity.

[Tulsa_Fireman]

Down south it's hot and sticky. Like a giant crotch.

[KantoSooner]

I'd never thought of that analogy, Fireman, but then it is called 'Dixie' so maybe I should have cottoned on sooner.

[diverdog]

Yeah, really not much to offer....and yet the south and southwest are the growth areas...go figure?

It is the warmer weather that drives a lot of them south. Lots of Southerners in Maine this time of year.

[FaninAma]

like this from #1?



i didn't know you were such a big fan of diversity ;)
Google the demographics of the town. It doesn't match up with the diversity claimed in the article.
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sharon,_Massachusetts

I didn't start this thread to be an elitist jerk but to find out what others think constitutes a desireable neighborhood and why the national media seems to select neighborhoods with less diversity.

I live in a community that is 73% white, 16 % Native American, 4% black, 5% Hispanic and 2% other or not identified. My youngest child attends public schools. I think the people who live here are nice and friendly but I also recognize we don't have some of the advantages the desireable neighborhoods listed in the article have especially in regards to the schools and scholastic opportunities.

[diverdog]

Google the demographics of the town. It doesn't match up with the diversity claimed in the article.
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sharon,_Massachusetts

Yep that is what I saw. Not much diversity.

[FaninAma]

Is it racism for whites who are better off economically to segregate themselves in communities like this or is it just a demographic quirk more related to socioeconomic status of those who live in these communities? If the latter is true what will it take for other demographic groups to be able to share in this economic success....more government programs?

Is it racism to seek out neighborhoods dominated by others who have similar priorities to your own especially in regards to providing opportunities for your children?


One point to consider is that the minority demographic group that showed up in the largest percentages in these communities were Asians. Any thoughts on why that is happening?

[Bourbon St Sooner]

Why don't you just say it? There's a seemingly permanent urban black underclass in this country. While historical inequities and current discrimination play a role in this existing, the largest factor is the victimization and sense of entitlement that seems to pervade this community. And there's a group of power brokers and race pimps who have an interest in perpetuating this situation.

[okie52]

It is the warmer weather that drives a lot of them south. Lots of Southerners in Maine this time of year.

Sure, that's part of it. Vacationing is one thing...residency is another...the south's growth isn't all due to weather nor is the North's shrinking electorate. And evidently the CNN/Money crew didn't think climate was an important factor at all.

[FaninAma]

Why don't you just say it? There's a seemingly permanent urban black underclass in this country. While historical inequities and current discrimination play a role in this existing, the largest factor is the victimization and sense of entitlement that seems to pervade this community. And there's a group of power brokers and race pimps who have an interest in perpetuating this situation.
I would have said it a little differently. It is hard for me to understand the real reason blacks are still having a difficult time moving up the socioeconomic latter. I feel like somewhere along the line they have allowed their priorities of improving their children's opportunity of being successful to be hijacked by the political hucksters and instead of taking on the responsibility personally as a community they have allowed politicians and merchants of racial politics to take over these concerns.

I think blacks want the same thing whites want for their children but they have, as a community, chosen a poor method of trying to reach those goals.

[diverdog]

Sure, that's part of it. Vacationing is one thing...residency is another...the south's growth isn't all due to weather nor is the North's shrinking electorate. And evidently the CNN/Money crew didn't think climate was an important factor at all.

Okie in this area weather is a huge part of it. We call them snow birds. If it were just taxes then they would be moving in droves to Delaware. Most around here move to Florida or NC.

When Southern towns do make the list they are places like Chapel Hill, Austin Texas, Savannah Georgia, Ashville NC or Vienna VA. Not exactly hot beds of conservatism. So the common threads that I see in those towns again get back to lifestyles, access to the outdoors (ocean or mountains), commitment to great cities and lots of stuff to do.

Btw, I think OKC is a good town but not a destination town for vacation or retirement. Not yet. Norman on the other hand could make a good run on any list.

[okie52]

Didn't see Austin on the list but did see the colony, Tx towards the bottom of the top 25...hardly a garden of Eden nor a bastion of liberalism but at least they have access to fine dining unlike Pelham, NE that came in at number 8. No mountains or oceans for those towns...

NJ, MN and MA had 9 of the top 25 or almost 40% of the top 25...Really? Out of 50 states? They are, I'm sure, nice cities/towns but ****ty climate and crappy politics wouldn't be a destination stop for me

[diverdog]

Didn't see Austin on the list but did see the colony, Tx towards the bottom of the top 25...hardly a garden of Eden nor a bastion of liberalism but at least they have access to fine dining unlike Pelham, NE that came in at number 8. No mountains or oceans for those towns...

NJ, MN and MA had 9 of the top 25 or almost 40% of the top 25...Really? Out of 50 states? They are, I'm sure, nice cities/towns but ****ty climate and crappy politics wouldn't be a destination stop for me

Huh, I didn't see anything but the top 10. Sorry about that.

we will have to disagree on what is a good climate. I like northern climates....then again I was born in Wyoming so it is in my blood.

[diverdog]

Yep that is what I saw. Not much diversity.


Didn't see Austin on the list but did see the colony, Tx towards the bottom of the top 25...hardly a garden of Eden nor a bastion of liberalism but at least they have access to fine dining unlike Pelham, NE that came in at number 8. No mountains or oceans for those towns...

NJ, MN and MA had 9 of the top 25 or almost 40% of the top 25...Really? Out of 50 states? They are, I'm sure, nice cities/towns but ****ty climate and crappy politics wouldn't be a destination stop for me

Okie I just went back and looked at the list and your math is waaaay off. I am talking about northern climates not the NE. Places like Washington, Ohio, Colorado, Pennsylvania. etc. you know places that have long winters. They dominate the list.

[BigTip]

http://money.cnn.com/magazines/moneymag/best-places/2013/snapshots/CS2560785.html

Can anyone discern what the common denominator is in most of these locations?

I scrolled through the top 20 and saw that none of the places listed had a population over 40,000.

[cleller]

In fairness to Fanin I did a lot of traveling the last two weeks including visiting Sharon and other NE towns that routinely make the list. This is a text I sent to a friend when I was in Burlington VT.

.I hate saying this but it is amazing how nice towns are without a large poor black population. The only diversity in Burlington is gay business owners.

I wish this was not true but in my travels there seem to be some common trends to nice places to live...they are for the most part in northern climates, people are outdoorsee, good work ethics, focused on community, education counts and not much diversity. I suspect for the most part it is the harsh winters that causes the lack of diversity.

Where is the required mention of the key component to modern American socially acceptable lifestyle: diversity?





One point to consider is that the minority demographic group that showed up in the largest percentages in these communities were Asians. Any thoughts on why that is happening?

Chiefly it is that the Dem party concluded years ago that certain races were incapable of providing for themselves and instituted policies that have made them dependent on the government. These policies have also destroyed family units, replacing the father with the government. We're left with a growing segment of these races that have witnessed this lifestyle, and believe it is the only thing available to them. Instead of working to support families, large numbers of young men have fallen back on a life of idleness and crime.

A logical society would call this the crowning achievement in racism, except it has brought harm to all races.

[okie52]

Okie I just went back and looked at the list and your math is waaaay off. I am talking about northern climates not the NE. Places like Washington, Ohio, Colorado, Pennsylvania. etc. you know places that have long winters. They dominate the list.

I don't know where you get my math is off...those are all northern cities like I said in my earlier posts...almost no southern cities in the top 25.

[KantoSooner]

I don't know where you get my math is off...those are all northern cities like I said in my earlier posts...almost no southern cities in the top 25.

guessing here, but most of the communities seemed biased towards tech industry. From Black Mesa South and East, the public schools simply don't perform and the culture is anti-education, it's hard to get the requisite numbers of well educated workers.

[okie52]

guessing here, but most of the communities seemed biased towards tech industry. From Black Mesa South and East, the public schools simply don't perform and the culture is anti-education, it's hard to get the requisite numbers of well educated workers.

I can see tech industries making for nice, clean towns with relatively good incomes but those exist in Southern cities too.

The public schools in the south are generally behind those in the north but many of the smaller towns/burbs have good schools...just like the northern cities that have made the "list".

The anti-education culture? You mean the "intelligent design" crowd? I don't think that stops students from learning math, English or history or even the basics of evolution.

[KantoSooner]

I was referring to the funding (or lack thereof) that we are justly famous for. We do great in early childhood ed and then effectively abandon the system and expect to get a steady stream of Einsteins out the other end. Why? I don't know, but I do know that when I bring the topic up here, or with relatives in Georgia and Florida, I get a lot of talk about how the teachers are freeloaders and don't work hard, how there are lots of great careers for HS grads, how all that English and literature is good for nothing anyway and why should kids waste time on such airy-fairy BS anyway. And so forth. It just seems like education is viewed as something alien and to be mistrusted. This point of view is not universally shared in other parts of the country.

Tech industry is not a cure all. It just happens to be newer and thus less 'burdened' with older employees. It's also less labor intensive so has fewer workers withhout degrees. Dump a chip design firm, for example, into any 25,000-50,000 burg and you'll see a marked improvement in a raft of 'liveability' scores.

[yermom]

I can see tech industries making for nice, clean towns with relatively good incomes but those exist in Southern cities too.

The public schools in the south are generally behind those in the north but many of the smaller towns/burbs have good schools...just like the northern cities that have made the "list".

The anti-education culture? You mean the "intelligent design" crowd? I don't think that stops students from learning math, English or history or even the basics of evolution.

keep telling yourself that

[okie52]

keep telling yourself that

Really? You think those kids going to religious private schools that also offer ID as an alternative concept are poorly educated? Keep telling yourself that.

[okie52]

I was referring to the funding (or lack thereof) that we are justly famous for. We do great in early childhood ed and then effectively abandon the system and expect to get a steady stream of Einsteins out the other end. Why? I don't know, but I do know that when I bring the topic up here, or with relatives in Georgia and Florida, I get a lot of talk about how the teachers are freeloaders and don't work hard, how there are lots of great careers for HS grads, how all that English and literature is good for nothing anyway and why should kids waste time on such airy-fairy BS anyway. And so forth. It just seems like education is viewed as something alien and to be mistrusted. This point of view is not universally shared in other parts of the country.

Tech industry is not a cure all. It just happens to be newer and thus less 'burdened' with older employees. It's also less labor intensive so has fewer workers withhout degrees. Dump a chip design firm, for example, into any 25,000-50,000 burg and you'll see a marked improvement in a raft of 'liveability' scores.

I don't know why funding is less in the south...some of it I'm sure has to do with the cost of living but certainly not all of it. The lottery passed in OK about a decade ago was supposed to cure all of those problems but, of course, the amount of the lottery was greatly overstated and OK often loses teachers to TX that offers more money. I support increases in funding to education that would put us at the top of our region/border states but I'm not sure throwing money at the problem would necessarily be a cure.

You are right about the tech industry not being a cure all. It is great for a town to have a balance of businesses/industry. I can remember when my son was going to Vanderbilt for a computer engineering degree at about the same time as the tech bust and places like Austin were doing very badly. I tried to warn him but he was wise not to listen to me.

[yermom]

Really? You think those kids going to religious private schools that also offer ID as an alternative concept are poorly educated? Keep telling yourself that.

i'm sure they do fine in theocrazy studies or whatever it is they do

[okie52]

i'm sure they do fine in theocrazy studies or whatever it is they do

Heh, I'm sure you do believe that...

[diverdog]

Really? You think those kids going to religious private schools that also offer ID as an alternative concept are poorly educated? Keep telling yourself that.

In science...yes I do.

[okie52]

In science...yes I do.

I'd be glad to match their science scores with those of public school kids. You really think they wouldn't be taught evolution or the big bang theory in their science classes?

[diverdog]

I'd be glad to match their science scores with those of public school kids. You really think they wouldn't be taught evolution or the big bang theory in their science classes?

Do you think there is a honest debate about creationism in any conservative religious schools?

[yermom]

I'd be glad to match their science scores with those of public school kids. You really think they wouldn't be taught evolution or the big bang theory in their science classes?

i wasn't in public schools. evolution is still a dirty word in Oklahoma schools, as far as i know

[okie52]

Do you think there is a honest debate about creationism in any conservative religious schools?

Sure I do...a lot of conservative religious schools teach evolution but they also believe it occurred through intelligent design.

I don't know that there is even a debate....simply being told that there is a belief in intelligent design doesn't change the facts.

I would venture to say that there would be more honest debate about evolution in conservative religious schools than there is about fracking or global warming in liberal schools.

[okie52]

i wasn't in public schools. evolution is still a dirty word in Oklahoma schools, as far as i know

My kids were all taught evolution in Edmond public schools...even sex ed...and I've got 6 grandchildren to prove it.

[KantoSooner]

Sure I do...a lot of conservative religious schools teach evolution but they also believe it occurred through intelligent design.

I don't know that there is even a debate....simply being told that there is a belief in intelligent design doesn't change the facts.

I would venture to say that there would be more honest debate about evolution in conservative religious schools than there is about fracking or global warming in liberal schools.

"Evolution through Intelligent Design" is a non sequitor. The closest you can get is to posit the Supreme Being as some sort of 'Initiator' who then turns his back...which would pose some pretty severe theological problems on down the line. Evolution describes a process through which change occurs. The entire point to it is that no one is in charge and there is no 'destination'. No plan. No pyramid.

I was unaware of the dichotomy between 'liberal' and 'conservative' schools. I thought the dichotomy was between schools that taught students more or less of a standard curriculum (some, by the way, run by religious groups - my own dahling daughter attended Catholic schools for 10 of her 12 years of primary school, notwithstanding the fact that I'm an atheist and my ex-wife is Shinto-Buddhist) and those that did not either through incompetence or idiocy (and there are examples of both failings in both the public and parochial schools in our state).

[okie52]

"Evolution through Intelligent Design" is a non sequitor. The closest you can get is to posit the Supreme Being as some sort of 'Initiator' who then turns his back...which would pose some pretty severe theological problems on down the line. Evolution describes a process through which change occurs. The entire point to it is that no one is in charge and there is no 'destination'. No plan. No pyramid.

I was unaware of the dichotomy between 'liberal' and 'conservative' schools. I thought the dichotomy was between schools that taught students more or less of a standard curriculum (some, by the way, run by religious groups - my own dahling daughter attended Catholic schools for 10 of her 12 years of primary school, notwithstanding the fact that I'm an atheist and my ex-wife is Shinto-Buddhist) and those that did not either through incompetence or idiocy (and there are examples of both failings in both the public and parochial schools in our state).

Not non sequitor at all....many believe that a supreme being/force set things in motion and may or may not continue to "tinker" with his creation depending on ones beliefs. Evolution is really "natural selection" and there is obviously a plan if you believe in the theory that in general the strongest and most adaptable will survive. In no way do the laws of the universe have to conflict with the belief a supreme being/spirit/force, etc... It doesn't prove or disprove such an existence by believing in scientific laws/processes.

As far as I know schools do teach from a standard curriculum. The conversation probably drifted where we were really talking about the influences of the society where the schools are located and the cultures that surround them.

[diverdog]

Sure I do...a lot of conservative religious schools teach evolution but they also believe it occurred through intelligent design.

I don't know that there is even a debate....simply being told that there is a belief in intelligent design doesn't change the facts.

I would venture to say that there would be more honest debate about evolution in conservative religious schools than there is about fracking or global warming in liberal schools.

Sorry, I am not talking liberal vs conservative in terms of politics. More along the lines of conservative religious beliefs as in the belief in the literal translation of the bible.

ID as a scientific principal has been thoroughly debunked. We should not even be discussing teaching creationism or ID in our schools other than as theological ideas.

[okie52]

Sorry, I am not talking liberal vs conservative in terms of politics. More along the lines of conservative religious beliefs as in the belief in the literal translation of the bible.

ID as a scientific principal has been thoroughly debunked. We should not even be discussing teaching creationism or ID in our schools other than as theological ideas.

I'm sure some religious schools have literal interpretations of the bible although I'm not familiar with any in my area that exclude the teaching of evolution in favor creationist beliefs.

ID as a scientific principle has been debunked? I didn't know science had found the original spark to the universe.

I don't have a problem with ID being taught in a philosophy/theological class in public or private schools as opposed to being incorporated in a science class or even if it is taught at all. But I certainly don't think students that graduate from religious private schools suffer because they are exposed to the concept of ID any more than the students suffer from the preponderance of college professors that push a liberal ideology.

[yermom]

ID is not science. that is the problem. taking it as such shows a fundamental lack of understanding of the scientific method

[okie52]

Do you think students at Casady, McGuinnes, Holland Hall, et al, understand the scientific method? Do you think they believe ID is part of the scientific method?

[yermom]

so it's science, or it isn't? you can't have it both ways.

you either pat people on the head that believe in it, or you don't. which is it?

[KantoSooner]

Not non sequitor at all....many believe that a supreme being/force set things in motion and may or may not continue to "tinker" with his creation depending on ones beliefs. Evolution is really "natural selection" and there is obviously a plan if you believe in the theory that in general the strongest and most adaptable will survive. In no way do the laws of the universe have to conflict with the belief a supreme being/spirit/force, etc... It doesn't prove or disprove such an existence by believing in scientific laws/processes.

.

Not arguing the existence/non-existence question. It's a pretty barren topic anyway and one that's been beaten to death.

Evolution, however, is not. You're missing the point when you posit a plan. And that's the very cool thing about it. There is no way to tell what set of attributes will provide an advantage. By far and away, the most 'successful' form of life ever are bacteria. Numbers, weight, longevity of phyla, whatever, they make mammals, for instance look positively puny by comparison. And who knows what comes next? 'Evolution' as a theoretical framework, positively denies any plan and any planner. You can have your cosmic watchmaker if that is your desire, but it won't be evolution anymore. And, I'd suggest, a watchmaker who only dips in and out as suits its whim is one that opens up the Epicurean 'Problem of Evil' with a bang.

[FaninAma]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_the_United_States

it appears that the US, like Europe, is committing demographic suicide thanks to Ted Kennedy and the immigration laws he helped push through Congress. This country will look very differently in 25 years. Some of you feel this will be a good thing. I do not. I do not see another country or culture in the rest of the planet where most of the immigrants are coming from that is superior to the culture this countryhas had in place for the past 150 years.

[KantoSooner]

Fanin,

1. We have not had 'a' culture for 50, 100, 150 or 250 years. It's been a work in progress from day one. (the Pilgrims, for instance put in place a 'culture' that 99% of us would regard as a totalitarian nightmare, but it changed.)

2. We've run around decrying the falling sky of immigration before. The Italians, the Eastern Europeans, The Jews, The Irish, The Germans and so on. Most of them were regarded, and treated, as something a bit less than human when they arrived. (and hell, they were the 'white' ones; the Chinese and Japanese were treated as a lot less than human.)

We are not committing suicide.

[FaninAma]

Fanin,

1. We have not had 'a' culture for 50, 100, 150 or 250 years. It's been a work in progress from day one. (the Pilgrims, for instance put in place a 'culture' that 99% of us would regard as a totalitarian nightmare, but it changed.)

2. We've run around decrying the falling sky of immigration before. The Italians, the Eastern Europeans, The Jews, The Irish, The Germans and so on. Most of them were regarded, and treated, as something a bit less than human when they arrived. (and hell, they were the 'white' ones; the Chinese and Japanese were treated as a lot less than human.)

We are not committing suicide.
Most of the time I agree with about 90% of what you post. This time I disagree with your last post unequivocably. Did you read the link and not see that this country has a below replacement fertility rate yet our population is increasing rapidly? Did you not read that immigration has increased significantly since the 1960's and I can guarantee you it is not coming from Western Europe.

If we don't have a predominant culture then answer the following questions:
What language do we speak?
What religion do most of our citizens practice?
What has been the largest demographic group for the past 150 years and where did most of them come from?
What is the form of government we have used to govern ourselves for the past 200 years?

Now, consider where most of the immigrants are coming from currently and tell me which culture you aspire for us to be more like?

Mexico, Latin America or South America?
The Indian Sub-continent of other Asian countries?
Africa?

I could almost get on board with some of the Asian cultures especially socities similiar to Singapore if they weren't so restrictive on civil liberties.

What happened to the native-American culture you feel such an affinity with after they were overran by massive European immigration? Are you saying that is our fate and we should just accept it?

Again, this country is voluntarily committing demographic and cultural suicide as are most of the Western(and Eastern) Europen nations. Does that make me a racist to express that opinion? I can almost guarantee you that Putin and the Russian government put their anti-gay culture laws into place because they realize the demographic ethnic Russians are facing if they don't get things turned around.

[Tulsa_Fireman]

So Russia's anti-gay laws are going to stop the mexicans from taking over?

I don't get it.

[KantoSooner]

We will continue to speak English, quite possibly better than some of our native born citizens do today. What gives you reason to doubt this? We've had periods of far more linguistic 'diversity' in the past.

Religion is irrelevant. Always has been, always will be. We're not a theocracy as much as Santorum and others would like to make of us.

Where DID most of us come from? Well, you've got about 12% who are black and some significant fraction of that number can derive ancestry from those who were brought here as slaves. Not all, but a big portion. Most of them came from West Africa, Nigeria to be precise (which was known as the 'Slave Coast' (along with the Ivory Coast and the Gold Coast (Ghana))) (Which, is an utterly different 'culture' than East Africans, North Africans or Central Africans.) Which segues nicely into our European heritage. Just how similar would a Russian Jew be to an Anglican plowman from Yorkshire? 40% or so of 'white' Americans supposedly draw some of their roots from Germany. How similar is that heritage to Greek or Italian? What of the Armenians? And the Scandanavians? Most, though not all are whitish and christian (of warring sects) but that's about it. And what of the Hispanics? some 26% of us I believe the last number is. Mostly Mexican, though there are lots of Cubans, Carribeans and Central Americans, as well. They're not monolithic, either, not in religion, not in culture. Hell, throw the Brazilians in there and they aren't even co-linguists.

But, I get your 'point'. The immigrants of today don't look like Ward and June. And that bothers a lot of people. And, so, to put a nice face on it, these psuedo scientific jeremiads are launched from time to time about how we're losing our 'identity' because of these 'others' 'invading' us.

And all along, they ignore that we've been through this time and again, for 300 plus years. And what make this country unique and our people different never changes one iota. I am shocked that you seem to believe that what makes Americans is so weak and failure prone. It's never shown any likelihood of failure before; why should we expect that the sudden appearance of taco trucks on our streets in 2010 will cause the collapse of what wasn't threatened in the least by the tamale wagons of 1910?

[FaninAma]

You stated we have not had 'a' culture for the past 200+ years. I guess it depends on what your definition of 'a' is.

yes, we still speak English primarily in the country but the bond of using a common language and the advantages it bestows on a society is under assault in a lot of different parts of the country.

I am very non-religious but religion is a huge part of a culture. I don't understand how you can even begin to refute this. Religion and the social practices put forward by the dominant religion in a society define the ethical and moral values of that country.

And you are the one who brought apperance into the conversation with the June and Ward comment. My observations are based solely on cultural principles such personal responsibility, self-reliance, work ethic, personal and community priorities, and expectations about what our government's role should be in our society.

Again, please educate us all by pointing out an example of a successful country or culture that prospered through the massive immigration of people who came from cutures with different priorities, values and systems of government.

Controlled and verifiable immigration is a different policy than what we have now. There are 2 certain results that will occur with our current demographic changes. White flight to mostly white enclaves will continue and non-whites will continue to insist that whites are responsible for their economic conditions.

[KantoSooner]

Two quickies:

Religion has nothing to do with ethics or morals in a society. Additionally, we've been a religiously diverse country from the start.

We were never as homogenous culturally as our propaganda stories have held. Native American and African influence, for two have been grossly understated; as has Hispano-Indian influence in the southwest.

Bouncing around a bit, let me cite one example of a culture that is and has been both strong and influential and yet is an utter polyglot. Around the beginning of the current era, this culture was more or less indigenous with it's own long standing religion, economic and cultural practices, it was pretty ethnically unified though some tribal strife existed. It was then overrun by a large neighboring empire of utterly distinct culture who flooded it's shores with immigrants, exported many of its own people as slaves and ripped up the local culture wholesale. That empire then collapsed and more invaders from the North East arrived with still another set of cultural norms and values and colonized, with massive immigration. Those folks were then booted from power by yet another wave of invaders, these speaking yet another foreign language, and finally, a cultural import from the nearby continent was imposed by a king of foreign blood which exchanged the old religion for a new one.

I speak, of course, of England.

Modestly successful little country located off the upper left side of Europe.

Celtic to Roman to Norse to Norman (French rinsed Norse) and finally the reformation. A Briton of 200 BCE would find absolutely nothing familiar if he were time machined in and yet would be in a Britain as British as can be.

[FaninAma]

Religion has nothing to do with morals or ethics in a society? Really? I guess that's why our culture is so similiar to Muslim countries in the middle east in terms of human and civil rights.

your synopsis on the decelopment of a popular culture in England was nice especially how ir showed that they did not become a dominant society until they had a unified culture. Until then they were just a country filled with feuding clans and power interests.

[KantoSooner]

stretching before exercise is helpful.

England was a center of the Celtic world. Not THE center, but 'a' (and the diffuse nature of Celtic power was probably one of its most attractive features. That and some notions of women's rights). England had all sorts of influence before it ruled the waves.

And, actually, our religiously derived social norms are pretty much exactly those of the muslim world....because they're drawn from the same texts.

To the extent that we differ from the islamic world, it's generally due to the influence of the Enlightenment, prior civilizations (the Norse and Celtic traditions of individual and women's rights and private property would be two, The Iroquois Federation's concepts of representative and consultative government would be another) and the fact that we are NOT drawn from a uniformly patriarchal, herding society, we are...diverse.

[OU68]

I'm with Fanin on this one, and I think your story of England is exactly what Fanin is talking about - we're about to become "not" America; who knows what this chunk of land will be represented by in a hundred years?

[FaninAma]

Kanto, I think at this point the discussion has deteriorated into a nuanced argument regarding what the definition of a dominant culture is. You seem to think the small changes of a dominant culture during the course of a country's history are comparable to the drastic changes forced by a country having to assimilate a large number of immigrants from cultures with different values and expectations. I don't.

Currently the Democratic Party is playing the role of the Tamany Hall political machine in NY around the turn of the 19th century in terms of signing up the loyalty of new immigrants except the Democrats are doing it with taxpayer money and without expectations of quick cultural assimilation expected back then.

[diverdog]

Kanto, I think at this point the discussion has deteriorated into a nuanced argument regarding what the definition of a dominant culture is. You seem to think the small changes of a dominant culture during the course of a country's history are comparable to the drastic changes forced by a country having to assimilate a large number of immigrants from cultures with different values and expectations. I don't. Currently the Democratic Party is playing the role of the Tamany Hall political machine in NY around the turn of the 19th century in trems of signing up the loyalty of onew immigrants except the Democrats are doing it with taxpayer money and without expectations of quick cultural assimilation expected back then.Fanin:Do me a favor:Divide 13 million immigrants by 314 million total us population. Tell me what % of the population we are looking at.

[yermom]

you should really put a space after those colons :D

[FaninAma]

Fanin:Do me a favor:Divide 13 million immigrants by 314 million total us population. Tell me what % of the population we are looking at.

Read the link I provided about 4 posts earlier. The number of legal immigrants over the past 4 decades is 25 million then you have to calculate family members and later generations. Now add the illegal immigrant numbers into the equation and you get a total of 38 million. Our birth rate is below replacement rate yet our population is increasing significantly. I'll let you figure out where the increase is coming from. Oh, and BTW, Ted Kennedy's legislation made it a priority to give immigrants from non-European countries priority when calculating the quotas allowed in via LEGAL immigration so most legal immigrants are from Latin America, Asia and Africa.


Under the current law, the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immigration_and_Nationality_Act_of_1965),[31] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_the_United_States#cite_note-31) the number of first-generation immigrants living in the United States has quadrupled,[32] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_the_United_States#cite_note-32) from 9.6 million in 1970 to about 38 million in 2007.[33] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_the_United_States#cite_note-33) During the 1950s, 250,000 legal immigrants entered the country annually; by the 1990s, the number was almost one million, and the vast majority of new immigrants have come from Latin America and Asia. In 2009, 37% of immigrants originated in Asia, 42% in the Americas, and 11% in Africa.[34] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_the_United_States#cite_note-34) Almost 97% of residents of the 10 largest American cities (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Largest_cities_in_the_United_States_by_population_ by_decade) in 1900 were non-Hispanic whites.[35] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_the_United_States#cite_note-35) In 2006, non-Hispanic whites were the minority in thirty-five of the fifty largest cities.[36] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_the_United_States#cite_note-36) The Census Bureau reported that minorities accounted for 50.4% of the children born in the U.S. between July 2010 and July 2011,[37] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_the_United_States#cite_note-37) compared to 37% in 1990.(note: children born to white hispanics (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_hispanic) are counted as minority group)[38] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_the_United_States#cite_note-38)]

[diverdog]

Read the link I provided about 4 posts earlier. The number of legal immigrants over the past 4 decades is 25 million then you have to calculate family members and later generations. Now add the illegal immigrant numbers into the equation and you get a total of 38 million. Our birth rate is below replacement rate yet our population is increasing significantly. I'll let you figure out where the increase is coming from. Oh, and BTW, Ted Kennedy's legislation made it a priority to give immigrants from non-European countries priority when calculating the quotas allowed in via LEGAL immigration so most legal immigrants are from Latin America, Asia and Africa.

So we are at 13% or so total? I guess that will keep the Quikie Marts going, lots of Chinese food and good ratings for Sábado Gigante. Is the cultural change you are worried about?

[KantoSooner]

My point with the England thing was that countries that are regarded as both successful and culturally pure are not culturally pure at all...and yet are still quite successful.

If you choose to be worried about immigration, you're free to be; and you'll stand in a long line of nativist sentiment. You will have to somehow square the fact that this same nativist sentiment was against every single immigration event; even those we now regard as 'core' to our national identity.

[OU68]

Fanin:Do me a favor:Divide 13 million immigrants by 314 million total us population. Tell me what % of the population we are looking at.

Frog meet pot.

[okie52]

Not arguing the existence/non-existence question. It's a pretty barren topic anyway and one that's been beaten to death.

Evolution, however, is not. You're missing the point when you posit a plan. And that's the very cool thing about it. There is no way to tell what set of attributes will provide an advantage. By far and away, the most 'successful' form of life ever are bacteria. Numbers, weight, longevity of phyla, whatever, they make mammals, for instance look positively puny by comparison. And who knows what comes next? 'Evolution' as a theoretical framework, positively denies any plan and any planner. You can have your cosmic watchmaker if that is your desire, but it won't be evolution anymore. And, I'd suggest, a watchmaker who only dips in and out as suits its whim is one that opens up the Epicurean 'Problem of Evil' with a bang.

Not missing the point at all and I'm not arguing for or against ID...just merely stating how some believe...


The watchmaker analogy or watchmaker argument is a teleological argument. By way of an analogy, the argument states that design implies a designer. The analogy has played a prominent role in natural theology and the "argument from design," where it was used to support arguments for the existence of God and for the intelligent design of the universe. Sir Isaac Newton, among other leaders in the scientific revolution, including René Descartes, upheld "that the physical laws he had uncovered revealed the mechanical perfection of the workings of the universe to be akin to a watchmaker, wherin the watchmaker is God."[1][2] The most famous statement of the teleological argument using the watchmaker analogy was given by William Paley in his 1802 book Natural Theology.[3]

The 1859 publication of Charles Darwin's theory of natural selection put forward an explanation for complexity and adaptation, which reflects scientific consensus on the origins of biological diversity.[4] In the eyes of some, this provided a counter-argument to the watchmaker analogy: for example, the notable atheist Richard Dawkins referred to the analogy in his 1986 book The Blind Watchmaker giving his explanation of evolution. Others, however, consider the watchmaker analogy to be compatible with evolutionary creation, opining that the two concepts are not mutually exclusive. In the 19th century, deists, who championed the watchmaker analogy, held that Darwin's theory fit with "the principle of uniformitarianism—the idea that all processes in the world occur now as they have in the past" and that deistic evolution "provided an explanatory framework for understanding species variation in a mechanical universe."[5].

[KantoSooner]

To me, the key fulcrum on which this argument turns is whether you assume a 'goal' to species change. If you do, a planner is possible, even critical to the process.
The historical record, however is rife with examples that demonstrate beyond a shadow of a doubt that there is no direction. What's a 'strength' at a given moment in time is a detriment at others. Thus, we're no more 'evolved' than a microbe.

[okie52]

so it's science, or it isn't? you can't have it both ways.

you either pat people on the head that believe in it, or you don't. which is it?

I don't think it is science but that is not what we were debating...


The anti-education culture? You mean the "intelligent design" crowd? I don't think that stops students from learning math, English or history or even the basics of evolution.


Quote Originally Posted by yermom
keep telling yourself that

They don't have to believe in evolution to be able to grasp the concept and it certainly in no way affects their ability to understand math, English, history....which are subjects for which they will usually be better prepared than public school kids.

[olevetonahill]

To me, the key fulcrum on which this argument turns is whether you assume a 'goal' to species change. If you do, a planner is possible, even critical to the process.
The historical record, however is rife with examples that demonstrate beyond a shadow of a doubt that there is no direction. What's a 'strength' at a given moment in time is a detriment at others. Thus, we're no more 'evolved' than a microbe.

Ima call BS on this. a Microbe cant fry up an Eat Bacon

[rock on sooner]

Ima call BS on this. a Microbe cant fry up an Eat Bacon

Vet, didja read the whole thread jus ta call BS?

[okie52]

To me, the key fulcrum on which this argument turns is whether you assume a 'goal' to species change. If you do, a planner is possible, even critical to the process.
The historical record, however is rife with examples that demonstrate beyond a shadow of a doubt that there is no direction. What's a 'strength' at a given moment in time is a detriment at others. Thus, we're no more 'evolved' than a microbe.

Well you can certainly draw your own conclusions...and if you are an atheist then obviously a "plan" would be an unacceptable position. If you don't believe man is the most "evolved" species (at least by intelligence) that has ever roamed the planet then by that premise we certainly are no more developed than a microbe. Of course, it is quite a "leap of faith" to believe that lightning striking some primordial ooze spawned life that was sustained long enough for evolution to even occur.

[olevetonahill]

Vet, didja read the whole thread jus ta call BS?

Hell, I aint read much at all of it. Just Kanto is a Bright feller but I saw that and Had to Call BS

[KantoSooner]

Well you can certainly draw your own conclusions...and if you are an atheist then obviously a "plan" would be an unacceptable position. If you don't believe man is the most "evolved" species (at least by intelligence) that has ever roamed the planet then by that premise we certainly are no more developed than a microbe. Of course, it is quite a "leap of faith" to believe that lightning striking some primordial ooze spawned life that was sustained long enough for evolution to even occur.

But is 'intelligence' any sort of measure? It's likely that Neanderthal's had 'more' brain activity than we do. More 'intelligent'? Maybe, by some measure. But we outbred them (either by having more babies or perhaps by killing theirs, opinions are split). How about porpoises? They may well be more 'intelligent' than we are and have the wisdom to simply stay where they are. They certainaly seem happier than the average working joe.

As to the lightening strike, you'd be absolutely right in any one event. Where your argument fails is that we're talking about billions, prehaps trillions of planets, over billions of years. And, if evidence of viruses and bacteria are any indication, life is pretty fierce stuff: once it gets going, it's hard to stop. With those odds, a poker player in Vegas gets dealt royal flushes billions of times and draws to them billions more. It's now pretty well accepted in the scientific community that the odds are strongly in favor of life not only being not unique to this planet, but probably being very common throughout the universe.

The probability of extraterrestrial life opens up interesting theological conundra: what has the Big Cheese been doing on all those other planets? Why did he/she/it 'double down' so many times? Maybe that's where he/she/it disappears to whenever we have one of those 'God awful' tragedies that no omniscient/omnipotent/benevolent being could possibly allow to happen.

and what happens when, as is virtually sure to occur in the next ten years or so if what I read is correct, we create life in a lab? (It'll be simple, virus-like stuff, so parentage will not be too intrusive, but it'll still be pretty awesome.) Will we then, to paraphrase Robert Oppenheimer, have become creators of worlds?

Oh, and you still can't have 'guided evolution' without destroying the concept of 'evolution' itself.

No planner, no plan.

[KantoSooner]

Ima call BS on this. a Microbe cant fry up an Eat Bacon

Fry, no. Eat? Yes. Give them credit.

[olevetonahill]

Fry, no. Eat? Yes. Give them credit.

Raw bacon taste like ****, If they can fry it then they suck on the evolution scale IMHO:wink:

[okie52]

But is 'intelligence' any sort of measure? It's likely that Neanderthal's had 'more' brain activity than we do. More 'intelligent'? Maybe, by some measure. But we outbred them (either by having more babies or perhaps by killing theirs, opinions are split). How about porpoises? They may well be more 'intelligent' than we are and have the wisdom to simply stay where they are. They certainaly seem happier than the average working joe.

As to the lightening strike, you'd be absolutely right in any one event. Where your argument fails is that we're talking about billions, prehaps trillions of planets, over billions of years. And, if evidence of viruses and bacteria are any indication, life is pretty fierce stuff: once it gets going, it's hard to stop. With those odds, a poker player in Vegas gets dealt royal flushes billions of times and draws to them billions more. It's now pretty well accepted in the scientific community that the odds are strongly in favor of life not only being not unique to this planet, but probably being very common throughout the universe.

The probability of extraterrestrial life opens up interesting theological conundra: what has the Big Cheese been doing on all those other planets? Why did he/she/it 'double down' so many times? Maybe that's where he/she/it disappears to whenever we have one of those 'God awful' tragedies that no omniscient/omnipotent/benevolent being could possibly allow to happen.

and what happens when, as is virtually sure to occur in the next ten years or so if what I read is correct, we create life in a lab? (It'll be simple, virus-like stuff, so parentage will not be too intrusive, but it'll still be pretty awesome.) Will we then, to paraphrase Robert Oppenheimer, have become creators of worlds?

Oh, and you still can't have 'guided evolution' without destroying the concept of 'evolution' itself.

No planner, no plan.

Just by the fact that man is exploring space and may even have the ability to affect his own climate would tell me that he is more intellectually advanced than the neanderthal or porpoise.

We haven't found life on billions or trillions of planets....we've only found it on one. Doesn't mean that life doesn't exist elsewhere but so far it is just good old mother earth. Nor do we know if life found on any other planet would have any bearing on how life here on earth was initiated. So far as we know we are the one in umpteen trillions that has life and that the lightning strike to primordial ooze has only "possibly" occurred on this planet.

Evolved life has been hardy for the most part but I would imagine the initial life would have been very fragile (given that it had absolutely no evolution to strengthen it) against the hostile environment and that it's life would have been very short...but that's just me. I would imagine life created in a test tube would be much the same and only with man's guiding hand and external influence will it be made strong enough to endure a few seconds of life. A planner...a plan.

Have no idea what happens if life is found on another planet...and then what type of life? Intelligent life or just something that crawled out of the primordial ooze? Could destroy man's concept of God or just advanced the belief that man rules the planets.

[KantoSooner]

porpoises can do ultrasounds, with their sinuses, remotely. Don't know how 'intelligent' that makes them, but it's a pretty 'evolved' feature. And Neanderthals may well have enjoyed telepathic communication. Intelligent? depnds n the definition.

No, no proof of life elsewhere, but we now know that so-called 'goldielocks' planets (not too this or too that, juuuuust right) are extrememly common.We've also got ambiguous 'evidence' from Mars and know that viruses can survive exposure to interplanetary space. And we've only been looking in an organized way for 25 years. I'm betting on the come on this one. Mind you that I expect that life to be on the order of slime-mold, so interstellar football dominated by OU is, sadly, not likely.

For the last time: evolution is not linear. It doesn't 'lead' to anything in particular. Thus, 'more' evolved doesn't mean stronger. In fact, if a lifeforms' environment becomes easier to live in, it will get rid of 'expensive' adaptations to concentrate more energy on the core mission: reproduction. Flightless birds are a good example.

[FaninAma]

So the destruction of the dominant culture that is largely responsible for making this country great is akin to evolution and survival of the fittest?

Or has this thread gotten completely off track and is now floundering around in the weeds? Just trying to catch up with the direction of the current discussion.

[KantoSooner]

floundering in the weeds.

We can go back to a nostalgic paean to Ozzie and Harriet, now.

Damn those foreigners! Damn their eyes!!

[okie52]

porpoises can do ultrasounds, with their sinuses, remotely. Don't know how 'intelligent' that makes them, but it's a pretty 'evolved' feature. And Neanderthals may well have enjoyed telepathic communication. Intelligent? depnds n the definition.

No, no proof of life elsewhere, but we now know that so-called 'goldielocks' planets (not too this or too that, juuuuust right) are extrememly common.We've also got ambiguous 'evidence' from Mars and know that viruses can survive exposure to interplanetary space. And we've only been looking in an organized way for 25 years. I'm betting on the come on this one. Mind you that I expect that life to be on the order of slime-mold, so interstellar football dominated by OU is, sadly, not likely.

For the last time: evolution is not linear. It doesn't 'lead' to anything in particular. Thus, 'more' evolved doesn't mean stronger. In fact, if a lifeforms' environment becomes easier to live in, it will get rid of 'expensive' adaptations to concentrate more energy on the core mission: reproduction. Flightless birds are a good example.

If there is no "plan" as you believe then it doesn't necessarily lead to anything/anywhere in "particular" other than I would argue adaptability. If there is a plan then obviously it does...to mammals and ultimately to man himself.

I might add that OU football dominating even the state of Oklahoma might be a "leap of faith" this year.

[yermom]

So the destruction of the dominant culture that is largely responsible for making this country great is akin to evolution and survival of the fittest?

Or has this thread gotten completely off track and is now floundering around in the weeds? Just trying to catch up with the direction of the current discussion.

wasn't it the dominant culture that was responsible for the imminent collapse of the country that you are describing in the threads that aren't about the perils of diversity?

was it the Mexicans or the Africans that started the federal reserve? how many of the banks do they run?

[KantoSooner]

Sadly, you are likely correct on the football front.

Still, we can be of good cheer, Barry started his program 35 years ago when he used booster money to purchase an island off Alaska's West coast. There he flew in a group of physically freakish infants: the largest, strongest, most muscular that he could find. Living spartan lives, they had to fight wild dogs in pits for their daily meat; slept naked, in the snow. Many did not live, but those that did, thrived. And they grew strong.
Now in the third generation, Barry has trained them in special schools and will soon offer 25 of them to Bob as an entire recruiting class.
Are bites to the jugular specifically outlawed by the NCAA? or is it a grey zone?

[sooner46]

I will take my south (Oklahoma and Texas minus the Horns) over the northeast any day. Most of the people I have met that is from the north have not been to friendly. They look down their noses at most of us like we are dirt and I am just as good as they are.

[FaninAma]

wasn't it the dominant culture that was responsible for the imminent collapse of the country that you are describing in the threads that aren't about the perils of diversity?

was it the Mexicans or the Africans that started the federal reserve? how many of the banks do they run?

So you think the permanent and growing poor in this country has nothing to do with the growing government federal " aid" programs that keeps them poor while enriching the greedy corporatists you rightly dislike? Big corporations and big banks love big government. Which demographic groups overwhelmingly support politicians who love big government?

[okie52]

Sadly, you are likely correct on the football front.

Still, we can be of good cheer, Barry started his program 35 years ago when he used booster money to purchase an island off Alaska's West coast. There he flew in a group of physically freakish infants: the largest, strongest, most muscular that he could find. Living spartan lives, they had to fight wild dogs in pits for their daily meat; slept naked, in the snow. Many did not live, but those that did, thrived. And they grew strong.
Now in the third generation, Barry has trained them in special schools and will soon offer 25 of them to Bob as an entire recruiting class.
Are bites to the jugular specifically outlawed by the NCAA? or is it a grey zone?

Bob has needed Barry's evolved recruiting class the last few years....maybe an evolved coaching staff too....

[FaninAma]

floundering in the weeds.

We can go back to a nostalgic paean to Ozzie and Harriet, now.

Damn those foreigners! Damn their eyes!!

That's OK. I simply wanted to make sure I was following the current thread direction. BTW,
your derisive comparison of anybody suggesting we are in the midst of a cultural decline to the simplistic notion we want to go back to the 1950's is beyond weak and it is an old tactic I've seen multiple times used by progressives. But by all means continue to do it if you think it advances your argument.

[diverdog]

Sadly, you are likely correct on the football front.

Still, we can be of good cheer, Barry started his program 35 years ago when he used booster money to purchase an island off Alaska's West coast. There he flew in a group of physically freakish infants: the largest, strongest, most muscular that he could find. Living spartan lives, they had to fight wild dogs in pits for their daily meat; slept naked, in the snow. Many did not live, but those that did, thrived. And they grew strong.
Now in the third generation, Barry has trained them in special schools and will soon offer 25 of them to Bob as an entire recruiting class.
Are bites to the jugular specifically outlawed by the NCAA? or is it a grey zone?

Are they all named Mike Tyson?

[diverdog]

That's OK. I simply wanted to make sure I was following the current thread direction. BTW,
your derisive comparison of anybody suggesting we are in the midst of a cultural decline to the simplistic notion we want to go back to the 1950's is beyond weak and it is an old tactic I've seen multiple times used by progressives. But by all means continue to do it if you think it advances your argument.

I am curious what declines you are worrying about? It seems to most of our problems are internal and self inflicted.

As I write this I am working on a loan to help expand a Mexican owned business.

[yermom]

So you think the permanent and growing poor in this country has nothing to do with the growing government federal " aid" programs that keeps them poor while enriching the greedy corporatists you rightly dislike? Big corporations and big banks love big government. Which demographic groups overwhelmingly support politicians who love big government?

you think corporations are going to do anything about the income gap? it seems like if the CEOs had their way, they would pay no taxes, and employ no Americans for anything. the country isn't sustainable if all of the profits go overseas. that seems to be what laissez faire has gotten us in the last 10+ years

the banker/CEO/politician demographic is the one that scares me. and it's the religious right big government types that scare me more than the civil rights big government types.

i think if there weren't huge barriers in the way for your average person to advance in the current economy, there might be more people that engaged in it instead of living in the aid programs for generations

[KantoSooner]

BTW, your derisive comparison of anybody suggesting we are in the midst of a cultural decline to the simplistic notion we want to go back to the 1950's is beyond weak and it is an old tactic I've seen multiple times used by progressives. But by all means continue to do it if you think it advances your argument.

Okay. Are there other 'culturally pure' icons I can denigrate? I simply went back to the last moment I could find before we got all fired up about 'diversity'. That must be the halcyon era, right? How about we try and agree on some of the American film stars of the '30's, 40's and 50's who all had that weird British accent...even though they were all from places like Ohio and Nebraska? That might prove fertile ground for really cruel jokes about cultural purity propaganda.
And it starts to get us back toward that hallowed era of eugenics, the early 1900's. Back when no less a light than a sitting US Supreme Court Justice could opine openly about cleaning up the gene pool. One supposes so that we might reduce the chance of miscegenation between WASPs and ... those others.
I've always owned mutts, they're smarter and healthier than purebreds. But, to each his own.

[FaninAma]

When I talk about diversity I am referring to diversity of principles found within a culture such as ethics, self-reliance and self-responsibility. If the immigrants from south of the border came here and didn't have a large percentage of them ending up on our social welfare rolls I would be all for opening up the border completely. Race has nothing to do with it. The propensity for a segment of our population to be a net drain on resources has everything to do with it.

It basically gets back to how many non-productive people can the wagon pull before the mules drop over dead You may want to replace mule with jackass because that is how a lot of us are starting to feel.

And anybody who denies that Obama and the Democrats are trying to get as many people into the wagon as possible is either a ****ing idiot or a ****ing liar.

[Turd_Ferguson]

And anybody who denies that Obama and the Democrats are trying to get as many people into the wagon as possible is either a ****ing idiot or a ****ing liar./thread.

[FaninAma]

The reason demographics matter.
http://finance.yahoo.com/blogs/daily-ticker/why-incomes-could-fall-next-30-years-151334171.html