Why is America so divided?

[quote=“Jaboney”] :ohreally:
Where do you get this stuff?[/quote]

Not all of it comes from those smearers and liars at Congressional Quarterly. I get some of it from The Obamessiah himself… from his gospel written in his letters to dailykos, behold the words of Obamessiah:

[quote=“Obamessiah hisself, on 30 September 2005”]In order to beat [the Republicans], it is necessary for Democrats to get some backbone, give as good as they get, brook
[color=#4000FF]no compromise[/color]
,
[color=#4000BF]drive out Democrats who are interested in “appeasing”[/color]
the right wing
, and enforce a more clearly progressive agenda. The country, finally knowing what we stand for and seeing a sharp contrast, will rally to our side and thereby usher in a new progressive era.
[/quote]

That doesn’t sound like me to be a guy who’s looking to work bipartisan-ly. That sounds more like he… excuse me… HE, wants to weild a terrible swift sword! And that’s right directly from the Obamessiah… you’re not thinking of questioning him, are you… :astonished:

I think Obama will be the most left wing US President since Carter. And we all know how well that turned out.

Maybe I should learn simplified Chinese in preparation :astonished:

[quote=“Huang Guang Chen”][quote=“GuyInTaiwan”]America is not the only country with a high rate of gun ownership. Take Switzerland, for instance.

Anyway, like every place, America is very much shaped by its history. It has (had) a completely different set of circumstances to Australia.

Australia was essentially mono-cultural/racial; founded by convicts (not religious puritans), a couple of hundred years later (so there were radically different ideas floating around); federated peacefully and has never fought a war on its soil. Of course that’s going to give a very, very different perspective.[/quote]

I mean guns specifically for shootin’ people. In any case, I thought Switzerland’s guns are mostly hunting, and military - yeah, yeah, shootin’ people related, but essentially with some military discipline factored into their use.

I’d say Australia’s history is equally as violent as America’'s, up to the civil war, and I’m sure our much abused abos could do without being completely forgotten from our early days, especially when we spent so much effort trying to wipe them out. perhaps we were just better at it than Americans?

Hmm, now as for America being so divided, perhaps I should just sit back and watch the thread and ponder. I didn’t really think we’d get to go each other’s throats on here. :laughing:

HG[/quote]

Well, the guns for shooting people thing again comes from America’s history. America as its modern, political incarnation, started with a war, and it also started in the 18th Century, which was a much different philosophical/political animal than the late 19th Century when Australia was starting to gain a national consciousness. The right to bear arms had philosophical under-pinnings, but it also had a very good practical reason: to be able to stand up to tyrannical government.

I’m not an expert on Switzerland, but from what I know, every adult male is essentially on-call to defend the nation if necessary (which means having a functional firearm). Of course, Switzerland hasn’t been involved in any war for hundreds of years (perhaps because of this, amongst other reasons?), but that’s not the point.

Back to America. America’s more recent gun-woes can probably be related to something else other than the right to bear arms. I’m sure someone could correct me if I’m wrong, but most of the gun-related crime, death, injuries, etc. don’t occur as a result of some middle-aged white dude who lives in the suburbs or countryside and takes a hard line interpretation of the Bill of Rights. The elephant in the room that no one wants to mention is that most gun crime, injuries and fatalities are perpetrated by young, urban, black males. If people really want to get to the bottom of what’s going on with guns, they don’t need to be pointing fingers at the weekend warrior in the 46 inch waist camo pants who moonlights as a civil engineer Monday to Friday.

As for Australia’s history, my understanding of it was that it was actually marked by relatively little military violence. Seriously, the closest anyone ever got to any military action in Australia was what happened at Eureka, or a rum rebellion, neither of which really qualifies. As for the situation with aboriginals, again, I don’t know that it was anywhere near as organised (even if it was certainly intended to be, which I don’t think it was) as how many American natives were wiped out, but I could be wrong. Anyway, I’m not talking about them for the same reason that I’m not talking about American natives: they don’t figure that prominently in circles of power. The much bigger issue of black history in America has no equivalent in Australia.

Anyway, just saying that Australia is a much different nation to America in a similar way that Canada is a much different nation to America.

So what you are saying is that the gun issue is essentially an issue of race? I don;t midn acknowledging elephants in the room, but are you sure that’s what you meant?

I’m hazy, but I recall discussion in at least Australian history of the Australian “frontier” or west, if you will, being a hell of a lot more violent and gun happy than America.

Anyway, I’d prefer not to get bogged down on guns in America, my point for mentioning them was that you can buy one fairly freely for the express purpose of defening yourself. In Australia if you mentioned that while applying for a licence they’d take your gun off you immediately. They just won’t legalise distrust to that level in Australia

HG

[quote=“Tigerman”][quote=“Obamessiah hisself, on 30 September 2005”]In order to beat [the Republicans], it is necessary for Democrats to get some backbone, give as good as they get, brook
[color=#4000FF]no compromise[/color]
,
[color=#4000BF]drive out Democrats who are interested in “appeasing”[/color]
the right wing
, and enforce a more clearly progressive agenda. The country, finally knowing what we stand for and seeing a sharp contrast, will rally to our side and thereby usher in a new progressive era.
[/quote]

That doesn’t sound like me to be a guy who’s looking to work bipartisan-ly. That sounds more like he… excuse me… HE, wants to weild a terrible swift sword! And that’s right directly from the Obamessiah… you’re not thinking of questioning him, are you… :astonished:[/quote]

That was 2005. Dems in the minority in Congress. The only way that Dems could stop Republicans from advancing their destructive agenda would have been lockstep party unity at that time.

Of course, achieving that among Democrats is like herding cats: Democrats think independently. Republicans, however, easily fall in lockstep.

Obama was absolutely right, too: it’s time for a progressive agenda. After 40 years of failed rightwingerism, the pendulum is swinging back.

Well fair enough, but you can’t claim that ending ‘appeasement of the right wing’, i.e. compromise, will reduce partisanship rather than make it worse.

And you shouldn’t complain if in four years time the Republicans decide to roll back the ‘progressive agenda’ as far as possible either.

But of course that’s different because the Republicans all march in lockstep whereas the Democrats are independent thinkers. This is about Good vs Evil, not a debate about the balance of private and public money in healthcare between a government and a Loyal Opposition ending in a compromise that combines the best of both proposals :unamused:

That’s the “most partisan” thing you were able to find from the “most partisan” Democrat on the planet? :roflmao:

No Ann-Coulteresque quips from Obama? No Rush-Limbaughian anecdotes from Obama? No? The best you have is Obama telling Dems that they need to stop appeasing right wingers? “Appeasement” has normally been considered bad ever since PM Chamberlain tried to make a political career of sucking German ass in the 1930s, but given the horrible taste of flopsweat currently running through the McCain’s campaign, I bet appeasement as a concept is comparatively palatable to the GOP mind now.

[quote=“Huang Guang Chen”]So what you are saying is that the gun issue is essentially an issue of race? I don;t midn acknowledging elephants in the room, but are you sure that’s what you meant?

HG[/quote]

Yes and no. Black males who have grown up in larger metropolitan cities are more apt to be exposed to gun related violence from an early age and therefore according to some studies/statistics more apt to be victims or offenders of gun related crimes.

I’d consider it about poverty and the distribution of wealth.

Meanwhile, the unequal redistribution of wealth continues:

[quote]Bonus Backlash Brewing
Bonuses? For Wall Street? At first I thought it was an early Halloween prank, but no, it’s for real: Wall Street firms actually may pay out big bonuses this year. (See Yes, There Will Be Bonuses This Year.")

The very people who brought us the global financial crisis are now getting ready to reward themselves for a job well done. Believe me, if I were clever enough to make this up, I’d be writing screenplays in Hollywood.[/quote]

So Bush and his mates managed to run a record credit card bill AND get the tax payer to pay a zillion times the GDP of almost any African country you care to name.

A war might give you plenty of frequent flyer points, but it’s still credit you;re running on.

HG

Huang Guang Chen: I have to admit that I didn’t go that far into detail in Australian history. I shall, in part, blame that upon my year 9 history teacher, Mr Rundus, who used to get us to make notes from the textbook (all said in a monotone voice) while he went out on the fire exit for a cigarette. However, I haven’t done enough reading of my own either, which is why I don’t claim to be an expert on the matter.

As for would I put gun crime down to race in America? No. I’d put it down to a certain culture that is far too prevalent in many communities. People can put that down to poverty all they like, but at the end of the day, these communities will only continue to hurt themselves by not actively changing their culture and giving a collective foot up the backside to those who don’t toe the line.

America is a strange place to those of us outside it, but again, I’m sure it’s in large part due to their history. Why are Australians the way they are? I’m sure Americans find Australians to be a fairly unpatriotic, irreligious, crude bunch, which may be strange to them. Dunno.

[quote=“Huang Guang Chen”]I’d consider it about poverty and the distribution of wealth.
HG[/quote]

I would have to look up the statistics, but I don’t recall seeing gun violence affecting poor whites in the same numbers as
it does for Latinos and Blacks. Yet, I know the area where the greatest impact of poverty and distribution of wealth I’'ve
notice lately is in education.

:laughing: Your Mr Ruddus sounds alarmingly like my smoky breathed Mr Kerr - who we always assumed was called Wayne - from the same grade. He taught American history, among other things.

I think your clarification sounds more reasonable. As for Australians vs Americans, America started as a colony of religious puritans, Australia as a penal camp, I guess. In recent times we’ve imported a faux patriotism, but I’m afraid the general population still instinctively hates cops. As far as religion goes, being closer to the issues swirling around the UK, we were very divided along Catholic vs protestant lines. It’s considered very poor taste these days to introduce religion into politics.

HG

[quote=“GuyInTaiwan”]
As for would I put gun crime down to race in America? No. I’d put it down to a certain culture that is far too prevalent in many communities. People can put that down to poverty all they like, but at the end of the day, these communities will only continue to hurt themselves by not actively changing their culture and giving a collective foot up the backside to those who don’t toe the line.[/quote]

Some times easier said than done. One way for these communities to five that collective foot, is by voting. Yet, that can be very difficult when one is a felon. Second, education is a key element. If you can’t read the ballot, how are you going to vote for the correct person let alone write to your alderman, congressperson, state legislator, etc to ask the to change your state gun laws? Perhaps you say protest, well what day would a person who is already living check to check take off to protest?

My guess is that it is also a Urban/Rural component to this.

If you looked at poor whites in urban settings, I think you might find similar levels of gun violence.

The state of Maine has one of the highest levels of per capita gun ownership, yet it also has one of the lower murder rates. It is also rural, poor & white.

[quote=“Huang Guang Chen”]:lol: Your Mr Ruddus sounds alarmingly like my smoky breathed Mr Kerr - who we always assumed was called Wayne - from the same grade. He taught American history, among other things.

I think your clarification sounds more reasonable. As for Australians vs Americans, America started as a colony of religious puritans, Australia as a penal camp, I guess. In recent times we’ve imported a faux patriotism, but I’m afraid the general population still instinctively hates cops. As far as religion goes, being closer to the issues swirling around the UK, we were very divided along Catholic vs protestant lines. It’s considered very poor taste these days to introduce religion into politics.

HG[/quote]

I think the only two things Mr Rundus was ever passionate about were the Geelong Football Club (and Gary Ablett in particular), and coaching the school tennis team.

As far as America goes, well that’s what I’m talking about. A completely different set of historical circumstances.

[quote=“Namahottie”][quote=“GuyInTaiwan”]
As for would I put gun crime down to race in America? No. I’d put it down to a certain culture that is far too prevalent in many communities. People can put that down to poverty all they like, but at the end of the day, these communities will only continue to hurt themselves by not actively changing their culture and giving a collective foot up the backside to those who don’t toe the line.[/quote]

Some times easier said than done. One way for these communities to five that collective foot, is by voting. Yet, that can be very difficult when one is a felon. Second, education is a key element. If you can’t read the ballot, how are you going to vote for the correct person let alone write to your alderman, congressperson, state legislator, etc to ask the to change your state gun laws? Perhaps you say protest, well what day would a person who is already living check to check take off to protest?[/quote]

Again though, the community needs to address this. It’s not enough to say they don’t have education. Why don’t they? Who in the community is making being an educated professional a cooler thing than being a gang-member/trash-talking rap star? Who is addressing the widespread delinquent fathers (if they’re even known) and the mass of sociological evidence that shows that having single-parent homes is far more likely to produce very bad outcomes for children? No, instead, it’s cooler to be some bling wearing thug banging as many hoes as possible and not take any personal responsibility for anything beyond one’s own instant gratification. What sort of a culture is that? Gun laws don’t address the underlying issues.

[quote=“GuyInTaiwan”]I think the only two things Mr Rundus was ever passionate about were the Geelong Football Club (and Gary Ablett in particular), and coaching the school tennis team.

As far as America goes, well that’s what I’m talking about. A completely different set of historical circumstances.[/quote]

Doh! :laughing:

HG

I didn’t know there was a football club in Keelung…

I didn’t know there was a football club in Keelung (Jilong)…[/quote]

It has a lot of fans who have mullets and are unemployed, probably named Wayno or Wazza.

National Journal showed Obama the most liberal Dem in 2007 for the same reason John Kerry got it in 2003- they were both on the campaign trail for most of the year and only showed up for the most critical votes- which tend to be the most partisan (BTW, McCain didn’t show up enough to even get a rating)

From Politifacts:

[quote]He wasn’t the top liberal in his two other years in the U.S. Senate according to National Journal. He was 10th-most liberal in 2006 and 16th in 2005.

The McCain campaign has previously cited a 2006 rating by the liberal group Americans for Democratic Action that gave Obama 95 percent, which the campaign noted was the same as Kerry and Sen. Barbara Boxer.

But there’s a little sleight of hand in that one. Although the McCain campaign is correct that Obama earned a 95 percent rating that year for voting the way ADA wanted, there were 10 senators who got more liberal scores than Obama, including Barbara Mikulski of Maryland and Richard Durbin of Illinois. (In the latest ADA rating, for 2007, Obama missed five of the 20 votes the group scored, so he received a 75 percent rating. But he voted the way ADA wanted on each of the 15 votes he attended.)

Voteview.com, a site created by political scientists that plots lawmakers on a liberal-conservative scale based on their voting patterns, calculated there were nine senators more liberal than Obama in the current Congress, including Russ Feingold of Wisconsin, Chris Dodd of Connecticut and Bernie Sanders of Vermont.

“Obama is a liberal, but he’s not the most liberal,” said Keith Poole, a University of California-San Diego professor who runs the site, whom we interviewed when we first looked into similar statements in June 2008.

Ratings from Congressional Quarterly don’t measure liberal/conservative votes, but they show Obama is not quite as partisan as other senators.

In CQ’s calculation of party unity, which measures how often members vote with their party on bills where Republicans and Democrats split, Obama got a 97 percent rating last year. [b]Ten Democrats had higher scores.]/b]

On votes where President Bush indicated his position, CQ found Obama supported the Republican president 40 percent of the time in 2007, which put Obama in the middle of the pack for Democrats. He supported Bush 49 percent the previous year.[/quote]

politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/748/

My fear about Obama is that he’s not going to be liberal enough; he’ll be listening to the wise elders of the Village who’ll explain that it’s now time to take a bi-partisan approach, by which they mean Dems supporting Republican policies.