ARE YOU NEW HERE? NOT LOGGED IN? PLEASE TAKE A MOMENT TO REGISTER FOR AN ACCOUNT AND LOGIN TO REMOVE THIS WINDOW
Welcome to PatsFans.com. Do you have an account? If not - please take a moment to register for our forum and experience a much smoother experience with fewer ads, along with no longer having to see this notification window. Also learn about how you can receive a free Patriots T-Shirt from the Patriots Official ProShop by CLICKING HERE. Please enjoy your stay here, and Go Pats!
Some state governments are more corrupt than the federal government. Like you, I live in southern New England, so it's easy to believe that state governments, as a rule, are more corrupt than the federal government (Connecticut certainly is). However, there are state governments out there that are run with more efficiency and less corruption than you'll find in Washington. They tend to be the states that are not dominated by one party or another; i.e. they have the kind of accountability that stems from the threat of being voted out.
Gay rights movements have been effective, but I would contend that the bulk of their success came in the the years before this millennium started. The ball got rolling on that and other hate crimes years before this toxic political and social environment came about in America. A better example of something to watch in coming years is the struggle to decrease corporate influence on elections; I'm fairly certain most Americans want this to happen. We'll see...
EDIT - I noticed you and I both used the phrase "insulated from public pressure". Hmmm...
State governments are notoriously corrupt. Where there's not corruption, there's incompetence, and I would argue it gets even worse on local levels. Who you know, nepotism, small payoffs, favors, etc. are mostly done at the levels where people don't pay attention. Our federal government gets national scrutiny from opposing parties, the media, special interest groups, and good government groups, so it's not easy to be corrupt at that level. Given the size of the federal government, it's remarkable how few stories of corruption come out. Compare that to business or state corruption stories. The demise of newspapers is going to lead to even more state corruption, since newspapers are the only media that does a good job keeping an eye on state government.
DONATE TO PATSFANS.COM
RECEIVE A FREE PATS T-SHIRT AND SAVE 15% OFF WHEN YOU BUY FROM THE OFFICIAL PROSHOP!
Free T-Shirt & Save 15% Off!
Like Our Site? Please help support our site and server costs by DONATING TO PATSFANS.COM and receive a FREE PATRIOTS T-SHIRT and SAVE 15% off EVERY purchase you make from PatriotsProShop.com. You'll also receive added benefits to your account including Removing All Ads During Your Experience Here At Our Forum.
NEEDED YEARLY SITE DONATIONS: 345 | CURRENT # OF SUBSCRIBED SUPPORTERS: 98
Predjudice will always be around, the reason, The Supreme Being created people to Look,Talk, and act Different Than Their Neighbor, we humans are animals, we have eyes, mouth, ears and noses just like the creatures in the forest, we eat the meat of other animals just like the creatures of the forest, animals have instincts bred into them that automatically tell the brain to cluster with their own kind, we see it in our social gatherings, for example
Polish American Club
Italian American Club
Greek Orthodox Church
Black Caucus
Black Panthers
Muslim Brotherhood
German Town
China Towns all across america
Black Neighborhoods
Jewish Neighborhoods
Italian Neighborhoods
Spanish Neighborhoods
Russian Clubs And Neighborhoods
If We Truly Want Equality And Respect For Each Other Why Do We Allow All This Seperation In America
There It Is Different People Create Predjudice
__________________
Harry Boy (Genius)
In The Absence Of Law And Order Society Will Surely Destroy Itself
State governments are notoriously corrupt. Where there's not corruption, there's incompetence, and I would argue it gets even worse on local levels.
I'm not quite convinced that all states and localities share these problems, but many do, and they tend to be in areas of one-party dominance.
Quote:
Who you know, nepotism, small payoffs, favors, etc. are mostly done at the levels where people don't pay attention. Our federal government gets national scrutiny from opposing parties, the media, special interest groups, and good government groups, so it's not easy to be corrupt at that level.
I think you'd be surprised. How much experience do you have in Washington? I'm asking seriously.
I understand from your posts that you have some real experience with the local and state government in eastern Mass, right?
Quote:
The demise of newspapers is going to lead to even more state corruption, since newspapers are the only media that does a good job keeping an eye on state government.
Actually, I'm quite liking the trend of bloggers taking on the government watchdog role. It puts a little more power in the people's hands, though the ease of making a blog makes it a double-edged sword, of course.
__________________
We get what we deserve.
------------------ “On a day when they could have had impact players David Terrell or Koren Robinson..they took Georgia defensive tackle Richard Seymour, who had 1 sacks last season in the pass-happy SEC and is too tall to play tackle at 6-6 and too slow to play defensive end. This genius move was followed by trading out of a spot where they could have gotten the last decent receiver in Robert Ferguson and settled for tackle Matt Light, who will not help any time soon.”
------------------ “On a day when they could have had impact players David Terrell or Koren Robinson..they took Georgia defensive tackle Richard Seymour, who had 1 sacks last season in the pass-happy SEC and is too tall to play tackle at 6-6 and too slow to play defensive end. This genius move was followed by trading out of a spot where they could have gotten the last decent receiver in Robert Ferguson and settled for tackle Matt Light, who will not help any time soon.”
I'm not quite convinced that all states and localities share these problems, but many do, and they tend to be in areas of one-party dominance.
I think you'd be surprised. How much experience do you have in Washington? I'm asking seriously.
I understand from your posts that you have some real experience with the local and state government in eastern Mass, right?
I was a political activist in the early 1980s at every level, and had several paid jobs for mainstream political groups (the national Democratic Party, the AFL-CIO Committee on Political Education, and the New York State Chamber of Commerce. I met a lot of Republicans and Democrats at every level of government. Since that time, I've been less involved, but have gone to rallies and on lobbying trips at the MA State House. Also, as a homeowner, interacted with my incompetent and lazy local town representative. Also, the nature of my job gives me insight into how local politics work, and a very good friend of mine worked for the corrupt Joe Malone.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nikolai
Actually, I'm quite liking the trend of bloggers taking on the government watchdog role. It puts a little more power in the people's hands, though the ease of making a blog makes it a double-edged sword, of course.
I agree. The blogosphere has become a powerful political force and at least right now none of the powers that be can control it. Unfortunately, it's not nearly as active on the state and local level, at least not yet. That said, it's interesting to see the quasi-legal way the special interests are going after Assange for his use of the internet. I think the prosecution of him is blatant power political by corrupt entities.
So are you saying if you were born in rural China, you would have the values you currently have?
Would I have the same family? Would I be allowed to attend a Christian church?
Quote:
What examples mandated discrimination against the majority are you referring to? Sure, there were a handful of cases when Affirmative Action was around, but that's no longer the case. Affirmative action succeeded in opening up whites-only fire, police, and construction trades to minorities, among others, and thus support for it waned.
Affirmative Action is not around?
Quote:
Of course, we all have prejudices, but usually when talking about discrimination we're talking about things that people can't easily change and not respecting the views and values of others. I disagree with Republican and Libertarians, but I certainly don't dislike them. I don't think I have any prejudices. For instance, I don't think the wealthy should pay more in tax because I'm against wealth, I think they should pay more tax because we have too much debt and need to do more to help poor people. If there was a way to avoid taxes and help the needy, I'd be all for it.
Ok, how about the view that Libertarians oppose anti-discrimination law because they are bigots? Is that prejudicial?
If a person should point out "reality" "facts" they will more than likely be branded Bigots by The Holy Wonderful Slobbering Politically Correct Police.
The ardent do-gooder is blind to Reality they always have a way to overlook it and pretend it doesn't exist.
__________________
Harry Boy (Genius)
In The Absence Of Law And Order Society Will Surely Destroy Itself
Libertarian views provide de facto support to the dominant culture. If we were a truly colorblind and otherwise tolerant society, they would make more sense, but we are not that kind of society. Libertarianism appeals to racists, but not all Libertarians are racist. Indeed, many Libertarians have a sort naive view that the pure simplicity of Libertarianism is somehow more important than the reality that those views have historically resulted in the oppression of minorities, women, workers, children, and others. On paper, the case for Libertarianism is stronger than in reality, IMO.
Libertarianism would only appeal to racists to a certain degree -- it certainly doesn't go the extent of permitting Jim Crow laws, which racists of both major parties were fine with. otoh, yes, it would also get rid of some protections that now exist in the law.
but that doesn't necessarily mean Libertarianism is flawed, and it does at least open the debate, if people genuinely want to have a discussion over questions like people's rights to associate with whom they choose versus government regulating the same. It's not a comfortable discussion (for anybody who isn't a racist, anyway), but I think it's one worth having.
Re: Ron Paul Wins CPAC Straw Poll.
Linear Mode
