You're completely delusional. Most of that money went to overseas investments. Do the research. That same money was pulled out of our economy to hedge off the impending bottom falling out.
What over seas investments are you talking about? The US has the largest wealthy class in the world and one of the largest gaps in distribution of wealth and resources.
Quote:
Sorry, but any tax redistribution will cripple the Middle Class as it's only aim can possibly fuse the lower class with the middle class and thus a pseudo-singular class that by comparison to the upper class creates not 3 but 2 classes.
What proof do you have of this? When people say things like this, I think do they not understand the middle class is crippled right now.
Hatred of a group of people is a learned behaviour, not an innate one, which makes your flavour of discrimination harder and harder for you to keep brainwashing your bigotries into each new generation.
Keeping Marriage anchored to its proper purpose - a heterosexual institution focused on the complementary roles of men and women and the raising of children in a safe, secure environment - has never been about hate.
The 'brainwashing' is being done by people who want to co-opt the institution for their own political purposes, and could care less about the harm done to the families who will suffer from the further devaluation of the family unit in society.
when I see literally billions of dollars thrown at minorities just to try to get them to go to college and when the federal gov't frowns upon any company that doesn't score high marks for diversity (and by frown I mean they will cut your funding if you don't get more minorities)
I feel silly, somehow I went through years of undergraduate and graduate school and missed out on those billions of dollars. Working class parents and student loans put me and other people like me through college. It seems that many of us were not told of these billions that were waiting for us.
I guess I am that government mandated minority hire. As I look around my job and see extremely few brown faces.
Quote:
I think we've reached a point where if you don't succeed it has nothing to do with race. It could very well have everything to do with growing up poor and just not having the ability to go to college but that's not a minority issue - as I said being poor has nothing to do with race either.
Things are certainly changing and getting better. But we not yet at the point where every one is on equal footing irregardless of race, class, or gender. This Nirvana doesn't exist anywhere on earth.
Quote:
I think we've grown up to the point where our major problem is class - not race and to confuse the two is insulting to every race of people in this country who don't fit your stereotypical "poor" or "rich" person.
I can agree with that to a certain degree. But America was founded with an entire group of people enslaved for 300 years and killed off another entire group in a mass genocide over the course of 400 years. Racial reconciliation for such atrocities just don't go away in one generation.
They are being marginalized because people say "oh well they didn't have to fight off slavery" and treat them as some second-class minority because they aren't as politically active as a blacks even tho they out number them.
Latinos are a relatively new political group. Blacks have been fighting for political representation for several generations now.
In areas where Latinos have a significant population (New York, California, New Mexico) they do have a lot of local political power. It will take some time for that to translate into national political power.
The sharpest deterioration in middle-class financial security is associated with the cost of a medical emergency. We estimate that only 33.9 percent of families had enough wealth in 2007 to cover the cost of a medical emergency, down from 35.0 percent in 2005 and 43.7 percent in 2000 deterioration comes as a result of less wealth and higher costs of medical emergencies.
Drops in personal wealth have contributed to the decline in middle-class financial security. Because house prices started to fall and debt continued to rise in 2007, we also observed the share of families who could weather an unspecified emergency equal to three months of income decrease to 29.4 percent in 2007, from 30.5 percent in 2005 and 39.4 percent in 2000.
The share of families who had enough resources to cover a spell of unemployment has declined since 2000. In 2007, 44.1 percent of families had enough wealth to cover a spell of unemployment, little changed from 44.0 percent in 2005 but still down from 51.0 percent in 2000. Unfortunately, the 2007 data likely reflect only a temporary respite from decline since the labor market has substantially deteriorated in 2008, beyond the time series data presented here.
Note that 2000 was the end of Bill Clinton's presidency.
I feel silly, somehow I went through years of undergraduate and graduate school and missed out on those billions of dollars. Working class parents and student loans put me and other people like me through college. It seems that many of us were not told of these billions that were waiting for us.
I guess I am that government mandated minority hire. As I look around my job and see extremely few brown faces.
Things are certainly changing and getting better. But we not yet at the point where every one is on equal footing irregardless of race, class, or gender. This Nirvana doesn't exist anywhere on earth.
I can agree with that to a certain degree. But America was founded with an entire group of people enslaved for 300 years and killed off another entire group in a mass genocide over the course of 400 years. Racial reconciliation for such atrocities just don't go away in one generation.
I too went through college on loans and didn't get a single dime from my parents so you aren't going to get any pity from me - if you wanted more scholarship opportunities maybe you should have gone to a bigger school where there are, literally, 100's of university sponsored scholarships for every race and sex except for white-male (there was only 1 that I remember that I wasn't automatically removed from contention for and that was the Free Mason scholarship but they aren't going to give that to someone who has no Free Mason relatives). Why can't we give scholarships based entirely on economic need? I'm quite certain that, say, Michael Jordan's son doesn't need to be eligible for financial aid - he's fine. Just like Donald Trump's son (does he have one?) doesn't need any. The lower -> lower/middle class of America needs the scholarship and that includes people of ALL races and of both sexes.
The real question is what about the poor white people who struggle to make a living? Who do they get to blame? Is the white man keeping them down as well? If so then it's not a racial thing - it's a class thing (as I said) because it's not the "white man" or the "black man" or the "asian man" keeping you down - it's the rich man vs the poor man.
Don't like rich people? Fine, that's great, but guess what, there are people of ALL races and sexes who are rich.
Latinos are a relatively new political group. Blacks have been fighting for political representation for several generations now.
In areas where Latinos have a significant population (New York, California, New Mexico) they do have a lot of local political power. It will take some time for that to translate into national political power.
I live in Texas - you don't need to talk to me about Hispanic political power.
The sharpest deterioration in middle-class financial security is associated with the cost of a medical emergency. We estimate that only 33.9 percent of families had enough wealth in 2007 to cover the cost of a medical emergency, down from 35.0 percent in 2005 and 43.7 percent in 2000 deterioration comes as a result of less wealth and higher costs of medical emergencies.
Drops in personal wealth have contributed to the decline in middle-class financial security. Because house prices started to fall and debt continued to rise in 2007, we also observed the share of families who could weather an unspecified emergency equal to three months of income decrease to 29.4 percent in 2007, from 30.5 percent in 2005 and 39.4 percent in 2000.
The share of families who had enough resources to cover a spell of unemployment has declined since 2000. In 2007, 44.1 percent of families had enough wealth to cover a spell of unemployment, little changed from 44.0 percent in 2005 but still down from 51.0 percent in 2000. Unfortunately, the 2007 data likely reflect only a temporary respite from decline since the labor market has substantially deteriorated in 2008, beyond the time series data presented here.
Note that 2000 was the end of Bill Clinton's presidency.
And you're more than willing to give him all the credit I suppose. Clinton's presidency worked for 1 reason and 1 reason alone. Balance. Congress was Republican and the president was a Democrat -that's the only way to get these idiots to work together. You don't like what happened in 2000-2006? That's because 1 party had control not because of what party it was. Look at 1976-1980, the Democrats has filibuster proof control and they made the country complete crap. No one party should ever have complete control - we are much, much better off when there is forced interaction between Congress and the President.
Part of the reason people have less wealth is because they are WILLING spending more on frivolous things. Also, just like stocks, you only lose money in your house when you decide to sell, until then it means nothing.
Keeping Marriage anchored to its proper purpose - a heterosexual institution focused on the complementary roles of men and women and the raising of children in a safe, secure environment - has never been about hate.
The 'brainwashing' is being done by people who want to co-opt the institution for their own political purposes, and could care less about the harm done to the families who will suffer from the further devaluation of the family unit in society.
Learn a little history and you'll see that marriage had nothing to do with raising children in a safe and secure environment. and you assertion that gay parents can't safely raise a child is even worse than anything Zinfella has stated here.
I too went through college on loans and didn't get a single dime from my parents so you aren't going to get any pity from me - if you wanted more scholarship opportunities maybe you should have gone to a bigger school where there are, literally, 100's of university sponsored scholarships for every race and sex except for white-male (there was only 1 that I remember that I wasn't automatically removed from contention for and that was the Free Mason scholarship but they aren't going to give that to someone who has no Free Mason relatives). Why can't we give scholarships based entirely on economic need?
So now it turns out you had to go to the right school to receive billions of dollars in free education because you were privileged to be born with brown skin or a vagina or both.
I'm not trying to play a pity game. I feel very happy and fortunate to have the life I have.
This specter that billions of dollars in free money is given to minorities is a distortion of reality and simply not true.
Quote:
The real question is what about the poor white people who struggle to make a living? Who do they get to blame? Is the white man keeping them down as well? If so then it's not a racial thing - it's a class thing (as I said) because it's not the "white man" or the "black man" or the "asian man" keeping you down - it's the rich man vs the poor man.
You can blame the top 10% who kept 600 billion of our 800 billion national economic growth. That is economic growth that people like you and I worked very hard to accomplish, but have less opportunity to enjoy.
Quote:
Don't like rich people? Fine, that's great, but guess what, there are people of ALL races and sexes who are rich.
I don't dislike rich people. Wealth is not evenly distributed between races and sexes at all.
And you're more than willing to give him all the credit I suppose. Clinton's presidency worked for 1 reason and 1 reason alone. Balance. Congress was Republican and the president was a Democrat -that's the only way to get these idiots to work together.
I don't remember it that way at all. I remember them fighting like cats and dogs. I remember the Republican congress attempting to do anything they could to get Clinton impeached. That wasn't balance.
When Clinton left office America had had the largest peace time economic expansion in its history, the budget was balanced, we had a 559 billion dollar surplus, he had a 65% approval rating.
No, of course Clinton does not deserve all of the credit but he was the President and he set agenda and supported the environment for these things to happen.
So now it turns out you had to go to the right school to receive billions of dollars in free education because you were privileged to be born with brown skin or a vagina or both.
I'm not trying to play a pity game. I feel very happy and fortunate to have the life I have.
This specter that billions of dollars in free money is given to minorities is a distortion of reality and simply not true.
You can blame the top 10% who kept 600 billion of our 800 billion national economic growth. That is economic growth that people like you and I worked very hard to accomplish, but have less opportunity to enjoy.
I don't dislike rich people. Wealth is not evenly distributed between races and sexes at all.
The University of Wisconsin all on it's lonesome gave away almost 3/4 million in 2003 - that's just 1 University and just 1 of the grants. Just...1... Would you be happier if I said hundreds of millions?
Exactly - fine, blame rich people, I don't care - it's about class, end of story, class, class, class. Probably the most famous rich person in America is a black woman! When was the last time you saw a ridiculously rich poor person, oh wait, right. You don't get insanely rich running Jimbo's Bait 'n' Tackle (yes, I totally made up that store)...
The future for same-sex marriage isn't marriage - it's civil unions and domestic partnerships (see Vermont, NJ, and New Hampshire).
And don't forget to include California. Same-sex couples have been and will continue to be allowed to enter into civil unions. This amendment didn't change that.
On the other hand, in Florida, any arrangements going by another name, but which would have had a legal treatment substantially similar to that of marriage, were also just constitutionally banned, alongside the ban on gay marriage itself.
Looking at the difference between the support for Prop 8 (52%) compared with the support 8 years ago for Prop 22 (61%), the trend seems be that opposition to the notion of same-sex marriage is actually on the decline in California.
I don't remember it that way at all. I remember them fighting like cats and dogs. I remember the Republican congress attempting to do anything they could to get Clinton impeached. That wasn't balance.
When Clinton left office America had had the largest peace time economic expansion in its history, the budget was balanced, we had a 559 billion dollar surplus, he had a 65% approval rating.
No, of course Clinton does not deserve all of the credit but he was the President and he set agenda and supported the environment for these things to happen.
Nice revisionist history there - all you remember is post Monica Lewinsky? Man, that must suck, you need to get that checked out...
And don't forget to include California. Same-sex couples have been and will continue to be allowed to enter into civil unions. This amendment didn't change that.
On the other hand, in Florida, any arrangements going by another name, but which would have had a legal treatment substantially similar to that of marriage, were also just constitutionally banned, alongside the ban on gay marriage itself.
Looking at the difference between the support for Prop 8 (52%) compared with the support 8 years ago for Prop 22 (61%), the trend seems be that opposition to the notion of same-sex marriage is actually on the decline in California.
Florida's Prop 2 was 62% to 38%. I am surprised that it has as high as 38% in opposition of Prop 2. I wouldn't expect Florida to be ahead of California on civil liberties issues They were behind on women's suffrage, interracial marriage, segregation, etc.
Learn a little history and you'll see that marriage had nothing to do with raising children in a safe and secure environment. and you assertion that gay parents can't safely raise a child is even worse than anything Zinfella has stated here.
You want everyone to see a gay marriage as the same as a heterosexual marriage, and that ain't happen'in Bro! If you can't see the difference, then you're blind. This gay movement to fool everyone into thinking that there's no difference is very detrimental to the fabric of society.
It's got nothing to do with hate, jerk! We already have civil unions which give gay couples the same rights. Nobody is having a fit over that, it's when you want to re-define an institution nearly as old as mankind to suit your own purposes that causes the ire of the majority. The people of California in particular didn't like having gay marriage stuffed down their throat by activist judges after having previously voted against it. You're in the minority, most people do not want what you want. You lost.
You want everyone to see a gay marriage as the same as a heterosexual marriage, and that ain't happen'in Bro! If you can't see the difference, then you're blind. This gay movement to fool everyone into thinking that there's no difference is very detrimental to the fabric of society.
It's got nothing to do with hate, jerk! We already have civil unions which give gay couples the same rights. Nobody is having a fit over that, it's when you want to re-define an institution nearly as old as mankind to suit your own purposes that causes the ire of the majority. The people of California in particular didn't like having gay marriage stuffed down their throat by activist judges after having previously voted against it. You're in the minority, most people do not want what you want. You lost.
It's f'ing over, get used to it!
As long as people keep fighting for what is right and just it's not over. When blacks were made slaves people didn't just give up and say, "well there is nothing we can do about it." When women were told they can't vote, people didn't give up and say "that is that, I guess women are beneath men." If you can't see that with each passing year America sheds its ignorant prejudices and matures as a whole, while your supporters against non-whites, women and homosexuals shrink a little more into nonexistence, then you can't see much. That fact Prop 8 passed with only 52% should tell you something about what will happen next time. Bigots have a long history of delaying civil liberties, but they have never stopped it.
Florida's Prop 2 was 62% to 38%. I am surprised that it has as high as 38% in opposition of Prop 2. I wouldn't expect Florida to be ahead of California on civil liberties issues They were behind on women's suffrage, interracial marriage, segregation, etc.
I think there's been a misunderstanding. Paragraph 1 was about California. Paragraph 2 was a diversion to Florida. Paragraph 3 was meant to go back to California, comparing opinions of a single state 8 years ago (61%) versus today (52%). I guess I didn't do a good job of segueing from paragraph 2 to 3.
Comments
You're completely delusional. Most of that money went to overseas investments. Do the research. That same money was pulled out of our economy to hedge off the impending bottom falling out.
What over seas investments are you talking about? The US has the largest wealthy class in the world and one of the largest gaps in distribution of wealth and resources.
Sorry, but any tax redistribution will cripple the Middle Class as it's only aim can possibly fuse the lower class with the middle class and thus a pseudo-singular class that by comparison to the upper class creates not 3 but 2 classes.
What proof do you have of this? When people say things like this, I think do they not understand the middle class is crippled right now.
What proof do you have of this? When people say things like this, I think do they not understand the middle class is crippled right now.
In an ode to Bill Clinton - that depends on what your definition of "crippled" is...
Hatred of a group of people is a learned behaviour, not an innate one, which makes your flavour of discrimination harder and harder for you to keep brainwashing your bigotries into each new generation.
Keeping Marriage anchored to its proper purpose - a heterosexual institution focused on the complementary roles of men and women and the raising of children in a safe, secure environment - has never been about hate.
The 'brainwashing' is being done by people who want to co-opt the institution for their own political purposes, and could care less about the harm done to the families who will suffer from the further devaluation of the family unit in society.
when I see literally billions of dollars thrown at minorities just to try to get them to go to college and when the federal gov't frowns upon any company that doesn't score high marks for diversity (and by frown I mean they will cut your funding if you don't get more minorities)
I feel silly, somehow I went through years of undergraduate and graduate school and missed out on those billions of dollars. Working class parents and student loans put me and other people like me through college. It seems that many of us were not told of these billions that were waiting for us.
I guess I am that government mandated minority hire. As I look around my job and see extremely few brown faces.
I think we've reached a point where if you don't succeed it has nothing to do with race. It could very well have everything to do with growing up poor and just not having the ability to go to college but that's not a minority issue - as I said being poor has nothing to do with race either.
Things are certainly changing and getting better. But we not yet at the point where every one is on equal footing irregardless of race, class, or gender. This Nirvana doesn't exist anywhere on earth.
I think we've grown up to the point where our major problem is class - not race and to confuse the two is insulting to every race of people in this country who don't fit your stereotypical "poor" or "rich" person.
I can agree with that to a certain degree. But America was founded with an entire group of people enslaved for 300 years and killed off another entire group in a mass genocide over the course of 400 years. Racial reconciliation for such atrocities just don't go away in one generation.
They are being marginalized because people say "oh well they didn't have to fight off slavery" and treat them as some second-class minority because they aren't as politically active as a blacks even tho they out number them.
Latinos are a relatively new political group. Blacks have been fighting for political representation for several generations now.
In areas where Latinos have a significant population (New York, California, New Mexico) they do have a lot of local political power. It will take some time for that to translate into national political power.
In an ode to Bill Clinton - that depends on what your definition of "crippled" is...
American Dream and Middle Class in Jeopardy
The sharpest deterioration in middle-class financial security is associated with the cost of a medical emergency. We estimate that only 33.9 percent of families had enough wealth in 2007 to cover the cost of a medical emergency, down from 35.0 percent in 2005 and 43.7 percent in 2000 deterioration comes as a result of less wealth and higher costs of medical emergencies.
Drops in personal wealth have contributed to the decline in middle-class financial security. Because house prices started to fall and debt continued to rise in 2007, we also observed the share of families who could weather an unspecified emergency equal to three months of income decrease to 29.4 percent in 2007, from 30.5 percent in 2005 and 39.4 percent in 2000.
The share of families who had enough resources to cover a spell of unemployment has declined since 2000. In 2007, 44.1 percent of families had enough wealth to cover a spell of unemployment, little changed from 44.0 percent in 2005 but still down from 51.0 percent in 2000. Unfortunately, the 2007 data likely reflect only a temporary respite from decline since the labor market has substantially deteriorated in 2008, beyond the time series data presented here.
Note that 2000 was the end of Bill Clinton's presidency.
I feel silly, somehow I went through years of undergraduate and graduate school and missed out on those billions of dollars. Working class parents and student loans put me and other people like me through college. It seems that many of us were not told of these billions that were waiting for us.
I guess I am that government mandated minority hire. As I look around my job and see extremely few brown faces.
Things are certainly changing and getting better. But we not yet at the point where every one is on equal footing irregardless of race, class, or gender. This Nirvana doesn't exist anywhere on earth.
I can agree with that to a certain degree. But America was founded with an entire group of people enslaved for 300 years and killed off another entire group in a mass genocide over the course of 400 years. Racial reconciliation for such atrocities just don't go away in one generation.
I too went through college on loans and didn't get a single dime from my parents so you aren't going to get any pity from me - if you wanted more scholarship opportunities maybe you should have gone to a bigger school where there are, literally, 100's of university sponsored scholarships for every race and sex except for white-male (there was only 1 that I remember that I wasn't automatically removed from contention for and that was the Free Mason scholarship but they aren't going to give that to someone who has no Free Mason relatives). Why can't we give scholarships based entirely on economic need? I'm quite certain that, say, Michael Jordan's son doesn't need to be eligible for financial aid - he's fine. Just like Donald Trump's son (does he have one?) doesn't need any. The lower -> lower/middle class of America needs the scholarship and that includes people of ALL races and of both sexes.
The real question is what about the poor white people who struggle to make a living? Who do they get to blame? Is the white man keeping them down as well? If so then it's not a racial thing - it's a class thing (as I said) because it's not the "white man" or the "black man" or the "asian man" keeping you down - it's the rich man vs the poor man.
Don't like rich people? Fine, that's great, but guess what, there are people of ALL races and sexes who are rich.
Latinos are a relatively new political group. Blacks have been fighting for political representation for several generations now.
In areas where Latinos have a significant population (New York, California, New Mexico) they do have a lot of local political power. It will take some time for that to translate into national political power.
I live in Texas - you don't need to talk to me about Hispanic political power.
American Dream and Middle Class in Jeopardy
The sharpest deterioration in middle-class financial security is associated with the cost of a medical emergency. We estimate that only 33.9 percent of families had enough wealth in 2007 to cover the cost of a medical emergency, down from 35.0 percent in 2005 and 43.7 percent in 2000 deterioration comes as a result of less wealth and higher costs of medical emergencies.
Drops in personal wealth have contributed to the decline in middle-class financial security. Because house prices started to fall and debt continued to rise in 2007, we also observed the share of families who could weather an unspecified emergency equal to three months of income decrease to 29.4 percent in 2007, from 30.5 percent in 2005 and 39.4 percent in 2000.
The share of families who had enough resources to cover a spell of unemployment has declined since 2000. In 2007, 44.1 percent of families had enough wealth to cover a spell of unemployment, little changed from 44.0 percent in 2005 but still down from 51.0 percent in 2000. Unfortunately, the 2007 data likely reflect only a temporary respite from decline since the labor market has substantially deteriorated in 2008, beyond the time series data presented here.
Note that 2000 was the end of Bill Clinton's presidency.
And you're more than willing to give him all the credit I suppose. Clinton's presidency worked for 1 reason and 1 reason alone. Balance. Congress was Republican and the president was a Democrat -that's the only way to get these idiots to work together. You don't like what happened in 2000-2006? That's because 1 party had control not because of what party it was. Look at 1976-1980, the Democrats has filibuster proof control and they made the country complete crap. No one party should ever have complete control - we are much, much better off when there is forced interaction between Congress and the President.
Part of the reason people have less wealth is because they are WILLING spending more on frivolous things. Also, just like stocks, you only lose money in your house when you decide to sell, until then it means nothing.
Keeping Marriage anchored to its proper purpose - a heterosexual institution focused on the complementary roles of men and women and the raising of children in a safe, secure environment - has never been about hate.
The 'brainwashing' is being done by people who want to co-opt the institution for their own political purposes, and could care less about the harm done to the families who will suffer from the further devaluation of the family unit in society.
Learn a little history and you'll see that marriage had nothing to do with raising children in a safe and secure environment. and you assertion that gay parents can't safely raise a child is even worse than anything Zinfella has stated here.
I too went through college on loans and didn't get a single dime from my parents so you aren't going to get any pity from me - if you wanted more scholarship opportunities maybe you should have gone to a bigger school where there are, literally, 100's of university sponsored scholarships for every race and sex except for white-male (there was only 1 that I remember that I wasn't automatically removed from contention for and that was the Free Mason scholarship but they aren't going to give that to someone who has no Free Mason relatives). Why can't we give scholarships based entirely on economic need?
So now it turns out you had to go to the right school to receive billions of dollars in free education because you were privileged to be born with brown skin or a vagina or both.
I'm not trying to play a pity game. I feel very happy and fortunate to have the life I have.
This specter that billions of dollars in free money is given to minorities is a distortion of reality and simply not true.
The real question is what about the poor white people who struggle to make a living? Who do they get to blame? Is the white man keeping them down as well? If so then it's not a racial thing - it's a class thing (as I said) because it's not the "white man" or the "black man" or the "asian man" keeping you down - it's the rich man vs the poor man.
You can blame the top 10% who kept 600 billion of our 800 billion national economic growth. That is economic growth that people like you and I worked very hard to accomplish, but have less opportunity to enjoy.
Don't like rich people? Fine, that's great, but guess what, there are people of ALL races and sexes who are rich.
I don't dislike rich people. Wealth is not evenly distributed between races and sexes at all.
And you're more than willing to give him all the credit I suppose. Clinton's presidency worked for 1 reason and 1 reason alone. Balance. Congress was Republican and the president was a Democrat -that's the only way to get these idiots to work together.
I don't remember it that way at all. I remember them fighting like cats and dogs. I remember the Republican congress attempting to do anything they could to get Clinton impeached. That wasn't balance.
When Clinton left office America had had the largest peace time economic expansion in its history, the budget was balanced, we had a 559 billion dollar surplus, he had a 65% approval rating.
No, of course Clinton does not deserve all of the credit but he was the President and he set agenda and supported the environment for these things to happen.
So now it turns out you had to go to the right school to receive billions of dollars in free education because you were privileged to be born with brown skin or a vagina or both.
I'm not trying to play a pity game. I feel very happy and fortunate to have the life I have.
This specter that billions of dollars in free money is given to minorities is a distortion of reality and simply not true.
You can blame the top 10% who kept 600 billion of our 800 billion national economic growth. That is economic growth that people like you and I worked very hard to accomplish, but have less opportunity to enjoy.
I don't dislike rich people. Wealth is not evenly distributed between races and sexes at all.
http://www.discriminations.us/2006/0...ps_at_the.html
The University of Wisconsin all on it's lonesome gave away almost 3/4 million in 2003 - that's just 1 University and just 1 of the grants. Just...1... Would you be happier if I said hundreds of millions?
Exactly - fine, blame rich people, I don't care - it's about class, end of story, class, class, class. Probably the most famous rich person in America is a black woman! When was the last time you saw a ridiculously rich poor person, oh wait, right. You don't get insanely rich running Jimbo's Bait 'n' Tackle (yes, I totally made up that store)...
The future for same-sex marriage isn't marriage - it's civil unions and domestic partnerships (see Vermont, NJ, and New Hampshire).
And don't forget to include California. Same-sex couples have been and will continue to be allowed to enter into civil unions. This amendment didn't change that.
On the other hand, in Florida, any arrangements going by another name, but which would have had a legal treatment substantially similar to that of marriage, were also just constitutionally banned, alongside the ban on gay marriage itself.
Looking at the difference between the support for Prop 8 (52%) compared with the support 8 years ago for Prop 22 (61%), the trend seems be that opposition to the notion of same-sex marriage is actually on the decline in California.
I don't remember it that way at all. I remember them fighting like cats and dogs. I remember the Republican congress attempting to do anything they could to get Clinton impeached. That wasn't balance.
When Clinton left office America had had the largest peace time economic expansion in its history, the budget was balanced, we had a 559 billion dollar surplus, he had a 65% approval rating.
No, of course Clinton does not deserve all of the credit but he was the President and he set agenda and supported the environment for these things to happen.
Nice revisionist history there - all you remember is post Monica Lewinsky? Man, that must suck, you need to get that checked out...
Edit: http://www.usnews.com/blogs/washingt...rich-pact.html
And don't forget to include California. Same-sex couples have been and will continue to be allowed to enter into civil unions. This amendment didn't change that.
On the other hand, in Florida, any arrangements going by another name, but which would have had a legal treatment substantially similar to that of marriage, were also just constitutionally banned, alongside the ban on gay marriage itself.
Looking at the difference between the support for Prop 8 (52%) compared with the support 8 years ago for Prop 22 (61%), the trend seems be that opposition to the notion of same-sex marriage is actually on the decline in California.
Florida's Prop 2 was 62% to 38%. I am surprised that it has as high as 38% in opposition of Prop 2. I wouldn't expect Florida to be ahead of California on civil liberties issues They were behind on women's suffrage, interracial marriage, segregation, etc.
Learn a little history and you'll see that marriage had nothing to do with raising children in a safe and secure environment. and you assertion that gay parents can't safely raise a child is even worse than anything Zinfella has stated here.
You want everyone to see a gay marriage as the same as a heterosexual marriage, and that ain't happen'in Bro! If you can't see the difference, then you're blind. This gay movement to fool everyone into thinking that there's no difference is very detrimental to the fabric of society.
It's got nothing to do with hate, jerk! We already have civil unions which give gay couples the same rights. Nobody is having a fit over that, it's when you want to re-define an institution nearly as old as mankind to suit your own purposes that causes the ire of the majority. The people of California in particular didn't like having gay marriage stuffed down their throat by activist judges after having previously voted against it. You're in the minority, most people do not want what you want. You lost.
It's f'ing over, get used to it!
You want everyone to see a gay marriage as the same as a heterosexual marriage, and that ain't happen'in Bro! If you can't see the difference, then you're blind. This gay movement to fool everyone into thinking that there's no difference is very detrimental to the fabric of society.
It's got nothing to do with hate, jerk! We already have civil unions which give gay couples the same rights. Nobody is having a fit over that, it's when you want to re-define an institution nearly as old as mankind to suit your own purposes that causes the ire of the majority. The people of California in particular didn't like having gay marriage stuffed down their throat by activist judges after having previously voted against it. You're in the minority, most people do not want what you want. You lost.
It's f'ing over, get used to it!
As long as people keep fighting for what is right and just it's not over. When blacks were made slaves people didn't just give up and say, "well there is nothing we can do about it." When women were told they can't vote, people didn't give up and say "that is that, I guess women are beneath men." If you can't see that with each passing year America sheds its ignorant prejudices and matures as a whole, while your supporters against non-whites, women and homosexuals shrink a little more into nonexistence, then you can't see much. That fact Prop 8 passed with only 52% should tell you something about what will happen next time. Bigots have a long history of delaying civil liberties, but they have never stopped it.
Florida's Prop 2 was 62% to 38%. I am surprised that it has as high as 38% in opposition of Prop 2. I wouldn't expect Florida to be ahead of California on civil liberties issues They were behind on women's suffrage, interracial marriage, segregation, etc.
I think there's been a misunderstanding. Paragraph 1 was about California. Paragraph 2 was a diversion to Florida. Paragraph 3 was meant to go back to California, comparing opinions of a single state 8 years ago (61%) versus today (52%). I guess I didn't do a good job of segueing from paragraph 2 to 3.
As long as people keep fighting for what is right and just it's not over.
People just did that, only you can't seem to grasp it.