Interesting Article on Changing Demographics, politics and Economic Policies

[Pudlugger]

WSJ.com OpinionJournal

DEMOGRAPHY IS DESTINY
The Realignment of America
The native-born are leaving "hip" cities for the heartland.

BY MICHAEL BARONE
Tuesday, May 8, 2007 12:01 a.m.

In 1950, when I was in kindergarten in Detroit, the city had a population of (rounded off) 1,850,000. Today the latest census estimate for Detroit is 886,000, less than half as many. In 1950, the population of the U.S. was 150 million. Today the latest census estimate for the nation is 301 million, more than twice as many. People in America move around. But not just randomly.

It has become a commonplace to say that population has been flowing from the Snow Belt to the Sun Belt, from an industrially ailing East and Midwest to an economically vibrant West and South. But the actual picture of recent growth, as measured by the 2000 Census and the census estimates for 2006, is more complicated. Recently I looked at the census estimates for 50 metropolitan areas with more than one million people in 2006, where 54% of Americans live. (I cheated a bit on definitions, adding Durham to Raleigh and combining San Francisco and San Jose.) What I found is that you can separate them into four different categories, with different degrees and different sources of population growth or decline. And I found some interesting surprises.

Start with the Coastal Megalopolises: New York, Los Angeles, San Francisco, San Diego, Chicago (on the coast of Lake Michigan), Miami, Washington and Boston. Here is a pattern you don't find in other big cities: Americans moving out and immigrants moving in, in very large numbers, with low overall population growth. Los Angeles, defined by the Census Bureau as Los Angeles and Orange Counties, had a domestic outflow of 6% of 2000 population in six years--balanced by an immigrant inflow of 6%. The numbers are the same for these eight metro areas as a whole.

There are some variations. New York had a domestic outflow of 8% and an immigrant inflow of 6%; San Francisco a whopping domestic outflow of 10% (the bursting of the tech bubble hurt) and an immigrant inflow of 7%. Miami and Washington had domestic outflows of only 2%, overshadowed by immigrant inflows of 8% and 5%, respectively.

This is something few would have predicted 20 years ago. Americans are now moving out of, not into, coastal California and South Florida, and in very large numbers they're moving out of our largest metro areas. They're fleeing hip Boston and San Francisco, and after eight decades of moving to Washington they're moving out. The domestic outflow from these metro areas is 3.9 million people, 650,000 a year. High housing costs, high taxes, a distaste in some cases for the burgeoning immigrant populations--these are driving many Americans elsewhere.

The result is that these Coastal Megalopolises are increasingly a two-tiered society, with large affluent populations happily contemplating (at least until recently) their rapidly rising housing values, and a large, mostly immigrant working class working at low wages and struggling to move up the economic ladder. The economic divide in New York and Los Angeles is starting to look like the economic divide in Mexico City and São Paulo.

Democratic politicians like to decry what they describe as a widening economic gap in the nation. But the part of the nation where it is widening most visibly is their home turf, the place where they win their biggest margins (these metro areas voted 61% for John Kerry) and where, in exquisitely decorated Park Avenue apartments and Beverly Hills mansions with immigrant servants passing the hors d'oeuvres, they raise most of their money.

The bad news for them is that the Coastal Megalopolises grew only 4% in 2000-06, while the nation grew 6%. Coastal Megalopolitan states--New York, New Jersey, Massachusetts, Illinois--are projected to lose five House seats in the 2010 Census, while California, which has gained seats in every census since it was admitted to the Union in 1850, is projected to pick up none.

You see an entirely different picture in the 16 metro areas I call the Interior Boomtowns (none touches the Atlantic or Pacific coasts). Their population has grown 18% in six years. They've had considerable immigrant inflow, 4%, but with the exceptions of Dallas and Houston, this immigrant inflow has been dwarfed by a much larger domestic inflow--three million to 1.5 million overall.

Domestic inflow has been a whopping 19% in Las Vegas, 15% in the Inland Empire (California's Riverside and San Bernardino Counties, where much of the outflow from Los Angeles has gone), 13% in Orlando and Charlotte, 12% in Phoenix, 10% in Tampa, 9% in Jacksonville. Domestic inflow was over 200,000 in the Inland Empire, Phoenix, Atlanta, Las Vegas and Orlando. These are economic dynamos that are driving much of America's growth. There's much less economic polarization here than in the Coastal Megalopolises, and a higher percentage of traditional families: Natural increase (the excess of births over deaths) in the Interior Boomtowns is 6%, well above the 4% in the Coastal Megalopolises.

The nation's center of gravity is shifting: Dallas is now larger than San Francisco, Houston is now larger than Detroit, Atlanta is now larger than Boston, Charlotte is now larger than Milwaukee. State capitals that were just medium-sized cities dominated by government employees in the 1950s--Sacramento, Austin, Raleigh, Nashville, Richmond--are now booming centers of high-tech and other growing private-sector businesses. San Antonio has more domestic than immigrant inflow even though the border is only three hours' drive away. The Interior Boomtowns generated 38% of the nation's population growth in 2000-06.

This is another political world from the Coastal Megalopolises: the Interior Boomtowns voted 56% for George W. Bush in 2004. Texas, Arizona, Florida, Georgia and Nevada--states dominated by Interior Boomtowns--are projected to pick up 10 House seats in the 2010 Census.

What about the old Rust Belt, which suffered so in the 1980s? The six metro areas here--Detroit, Pittsburgh, Cleveland, Milwaukee, Buffalo, Rochester--have lost population since 2000. Their domestic outflow of 4% has been only partially offset by an immigrant inflow of 1%. If the outflow seems smaller than in the 1980s, it's because so many young people have already left. Natural increase is only 2%, lower than in Orlando or Jacksonville in supposedly elderly Florida. Their economies are ailing, more of a drag on, than an engine for, the nation. They're not the source of dynamism they were 80 or 100 years ago. They continue to vote Democratic, but their 54% for John Kerry was much lower than the Coastal Megalopolis's 61%. Their states are projected to lose six House seats in the 2010 Census.

The fourth category is what I call the Static Cities. They seem to be holding their own economically, but are not surging ahead and some are in danger of falling back. Philadelphia makes the list, and so do Baltimore, Hartford and Providence in the East.

Surprisingly, some Western cities that boomed in the 1990s are in this category too: Seattle (the tech bust again), Denver, Portland. In the Midwest, Minneapolis, St. Louis, Cincinnati, Kansas City, Columbus and Indianapolis are doing better than their Rust Belt neighbors and make the list. In the South, Norfolk, Memphis, Louisville, Oklahoma City and Birmingham are lagging enough behind the Interior Boomtowns to do so. Overall the Static Cities had a domestic inflow of just 18,000 people (.048%) and an immigrant inflow of 2%. Politically, they're a mixed bag, a bit more Democratic than the nation as a whole: 52% for Kerry, 47% for Bush.


What of the rest of the nation? You can find a few smaller metro areas that look like the Coastal Megalopolises (Santa Barbara, university towns like Iowa City), many that resemble the Interior Boomtowns (Fort Myers, Tucson) and the Rust Belt (Canton, Muncie). You can find rural counties that are losing population (as are most counties in North Dakota) and, even amid them, towns that have solid growth (Fargo, Bismarck).

But overall the nation beyond these 49 metro areas looks like the Static Cities: 1% domestic inflow, 1% immigrant inflow, 4% population growth. But politically it is more Republican, taking in as it does large swathes of the South, Great Plains and Rocky Mountains, and in line with the historical record of non-metropolitan areas being less Democratic than metro areas: 56% for Bush, 42% for Kerry.

What's now in store is a shifting of political weight from a small Rust Belt which leans Democratic and from the much larger Coastal Megalopolises, where both secular top earners and immigrant low earners vote heavily Democratic, toward the Interior Megalopolises, where most voters are private-sector religious Republicans but where significant immigrant populations lean to the Democrats. House seats and electoral votes will shift from New York, New Jersey and Illinois to Texas, Florida, Georgia, Arizona and Nevada; within California, House seats will shift from the Democratic coast to the Republican Inland Empire and Central Valley.

Demography is destiny. When I was in kindergarten in 1950, Detroit was the nation's fifth largest metro area, with 3,170,000 people. Now it ranks 11th and is soon to be overtaken by Phoenix, which had 331,000 people in 1950. In the close 1960 election, in which electoral votes were based on the 1950 Census, Michigan cast 20 votes for John Kennedy and Arizona cast four votes for Richard Nixon; New York cast 45 votes for Kennedy and Florida cast 10 votes for Nixon. In 2012, Michigan will likely have 16 electoral votes and Arizona 12; New York will have 29 votes and Florida 29. That's the kind of political change demographics makes over the years.

Copyright © 2007 Dow Jones & Company, Inc. All Rights Reserved.

*edited to 1000 words by Pudlugger.

[Darren]

Sounds like the republican vote will be boosted by this change.

[big daddy russ]

Originally posted by Darren
Sounds like the republican vote will be boosted by this change.
If the trend continues (which it looks like Dems are losing ground at a slow, but steady pace), you'll see a shift in parties. A few moderate Republicans will shift over to the Dems and the donkeys will begin to take a more conservative approach toward their platforms.

[JasperDog94]

Originally posted by big daddy russ
...and the donkeys will begin to take a more conservative approach toward their platforms. Not as long as Pelosi is in power.

[big daddy russ]

Originally posted by JasperDog94
Not as long as Pelosi is in power.
We're talking long-term here. This isn't something that's going to happen in the next ten years or anything.

[JasperDog94]

Originally posted by big daddy russ
We're talking long-term here. This isn't something that's going to happen in the next ten years or anything. I really thought when the Dems lost the election in 2000 that they would move more moderate. I'm still waiting. As a matter of fact the entire political spectrum has moved left. Most dems are liberal to very liberal and most repubs are moderate. There are very few conservatives left in office.:(

[BIG BLUE DEFENSIVE END]

Originally posted by JasperDog94
I really thought when the Dems lost the election in 2000 that they would move more moderate. I'm still waiting. As a matter of fact the entire political spectrum has moved left. Most dems are liberal to very liberal and most repubs are moderate. There are very few conservatives left in office.:(

I can't say that I agree with what you're saying.

[JasperDog94]

Originally posted by BIG BLUE DEFENSIVE END
I can't say that I agree with what you're saying. IMO there are no strong conservatives in politics right now. There are some there, but not any real leaders.

[BIG BLUE DEFENSIVE END]

Originally posted by JasperDog94
IMO there are no strong conservatives in politics right now. There are some there, but not any real leaders.

Well, I term myself moderate, and there is no way in hell that I'm a Republican.

[JasperDog94]

Originally posted by BIG BLUE DEFENSIVE END
Well, I term myself moderate, and there is no way in hell that I'm a Republican. Here's my litmus test:

1. Abortion: (A) Pro life or (B)pro choice
2. Taxes: (A) Everyone should pay same percentage or (B) the rich should pay a higher percentage
3. Immigration: (A) Enforce the borders and no amnesty or (B) selective enforcement of the borders and amnesty
4. Energy: (A) Build more refineries and drill for more oil or (B) protect the environment at all costs
5. Spending: (A) Smaller federal government or (B) larger federal government
6. Healthcare: (A) Privatized or (B) Socialized

A - Conservatives
B - Liberals

Where do you fall?

[BIG BLUE DEFENSIVE END]

Originally posted by JasperDog94
Here's my litmus test:

1. Abortion: (A) Pro life or (B)pro choice
2. Taxes: (A) Everyone should pay same percentage or (B) the rich should pay a higher percentage
3. Immigration: (A) Enforce the borders and no amnesty or (B) selective enforcement of the borders and amnesty
4. Energy: (A) Build more refineries and drill for more oil or (B) protect the environment at all costs
5. Spending: (A) Smaller federal government or (B) larger federal government
6. Healthcare: (A) Privatized or (B) Socialized

A - Conservatives
B - Liberals

Where do you fall?

3 A's and 3 B's.

Guess that means I'm moderate.

[JasperDog94]

Originally posted by BIG BLUE DEFENSIVE END
3 A's and 3 B's.

Guess that means I'm moderate. I guess you and our current president have something in common then. He's 4 A's and 2 B's.

He's terrible on Immigration and Spending.

[BIG BLUE DEFENSIVE END]

Originally posted by JasperDog94
I guess you and our current president have something in common then. He's 4 A's and 2 B's.

He's terrible on Immigration and Spending.

My 3 A's were on immigration, size of government, and energy.

[JasperDog94]

I definitely think you're a moderate...which is where most republicans are right now.

[BIG BLUE DEFENSIVE END]

Originally posted by JasperDog94
I definitely think you're a moderate...which is where most republicans are right now.

My big issues are fiscal policy and Constitutional rights, and they are too far off from the Republican party for me to ever be considered a part of it.

[JasperDog94]

Originally posted by BIG BLUE DEFENSIVE END
My big issues are fiscal policy and Constitutional rights, and they are too far off from the Republican party for me to ever be considered a part of it. I don't consider myself to be a member of the republican party either. I'm a conservative through and through.

[big daddy russ]

Originally posted by BIG BLUE DEFENSIVE END
My 3 A's were on immigration, size of government, and energy.
LOL, you don't really have a political party, do you? Kinda like me.

Small government's always been the biggest sticking point and lone consistent platform of the Republican party throughout its 150 years of existence.

[DDBooger]

Originally posted by big daddy russ
LOL, you don't really have a political party, do you? Kinda like me.

Small government's always been the biggest sticking point and lone consistent platform of the Republican party throughout its 150 years of existence. not as of recently, in fact a thorn in Bush' side with regards to REAL conservatives and libertarians.

[big daddy russ]

Originally posted by DDBooger
not as of recently, in fact a thorn in Bush' side with regards to REAL conservatives and libertarians.
We're talking about the party, not a single candidate.

Bush is uber-popular with the neo-Cons, but has lost some support within the Reagan Republicans.

[DDBooger]

Originally posted by big daddy russ
We're talking about the party, not a single candidate.

Bush is uber-popular with the neo-Cons, but has lost some support within the Reagan Republicans. your talking about the commander in chief, prez., not a candidate. and yes you are exactly right re neo-cons and the difference from Reagan-
R. but the it seems most americans are remaining moderate hence the ebb and flow of politics back and forth

[big daddy russ]

Originally posted by DDBooger
your talking about the commander in chief, prez., not a candidate. and yes you are exactly right re neo-cons and the difference from Reagan-
R. but the it seems most americans are remaining moderate hence the ebb and flow of politics back and forth
He may be the Commander-in-Chief, but he's still only one member of the party and doesn't necessarily represent the party's platform with the Patriot Act, etc, as much as he does his personal platform.

Don't forget that each candidate has two platforms they run on... personal and party.

[BIG BLUE DEFENSIVE END]

Originally posted by big daddy russ
LOL, you don't really have a political party, do you? Kinda like me.

Small government's always been the biggest sticking point and lone consistent platform of the Republican party throughout its 150 years of existence.

I consider myself a proud Democrat, but I don't always side with them on issues concerning the environment, and especially illegal immigration.

[DDBooger]

Originally posted by big daddy russ
He may be the Commander-in-Chief, but he's still only one member of the party and doesn't necessarily represent the party's platform with the Patriot Act, etc, as much as he does his personal platform.

Don't forget that each candidate has two platforms they run on... personal and party. not forgeting or suggesting, just differentiating between a candidate and the most powerfull position in the world:p

personal and party may not be the same but the relationship is dialectical because one certainly effects the other(mid-term elections et. al)

[Pudlugger]

Originally posted by BIG BLUE DEFENSIVE END
Well, I term myself moderate, and there is no way in hell that I'm a Republican.

This proves his point! If BBDE sees himself as moderate with his position on high taxes, bigger government, more regulation and union shops the center has moved far to the left. This is the platform of the democratic party in 1938 under FDR.
As best I can tell from BBDE's posts in the past his only conservative credentials concern the Second Amendment pertaining to an individual's right to bear arms. This is a bona fide conservative viewpoint and I salute him for it. I have not given up on BBDE but some days are harder than others LOL!:D

[Pudlugger]

Originally posted by JasperDog94
Here's my litmus test:

1. Abortion: (A) Pro life or (B)pro choice
2. Taxes: (A) Everyone should pay same percentage or (B) the rich should pay a higher percentage
3. Immigration: (A) Enforce the borders and no amnesty or (B) selective enforcement of the borders and amnesty
4. Energy: (A) Build more refineries and drill for more oil or (B) protect the environment at all costs
5. Spending: (A) Smaller federal government or (B) larger federal government
6. Healthcare: (A) Privatized or (B) Socialized

A - Conservatives
B - Liberals

Where do you fall?

:clap: :clap: :clap: All A's here for me!

[Pudlugger]

Originally posted by BIG BLUE DEFENSIVE END
My big issues are fiscal policy and Constitutional rights, and they are too far off from the Republican party for me to ever be considered a part of it.

Dang! Is BBDE actually a Libertarian ? Just when you think you know someone they go and pull this on you. Well, this test needs some work IMO. What about National Security?

A) The security of the country and its people is sometimes more important than certain civil liberties such as the right to privacy, the right to assemble and habius corpus. Under certain prescribed circumstances and with judicial oversight these rights can be trumped by the need to know if it saves innocent lives.
B) Civil liberties can never be trumped by the need to know, even if it means innocent people will die.

Okay, that's better.

[GetRDoneStangs]

All A's here for me!

Me too!!! First time I have ever had all "A's"..:D :D :D

[BIG BLUE DEFENSIVE END]

Originally posted by Pudlugger
Dang! Is BBDE actually a Libertarian ? Just when you think you know someone they go and pull this on you. Well, this test needs some work IMO. What about National Security?

A) The security of the country and its people is sometimes more important than certain civil liberties such as the right to privacy, the right to assemble and habius corpus. Under certain prescribed circumstances and with judicial oversight these rights can be trumped by the need to know if it saves innocent lives.
B) Civil liberties can never be trumped by the need to know, even if it means innocent people will die.

Okay, that's better.

No, I'm not a Libertarian, I know what their political viewpoint entails and I'm not interested in being a part of it.

I choose B all the way. The Constitution was given the Bill of Rights for a reason, and that is to prevent the government from having too much power. You as a Republican should understand that and want the same thing, seeing as how traditionally Republicans want a limited amount of government control on citizens. Kind of ironic if you ask me.

[Pudlugger]

Originally posted by BIG BLUE DEFENSIVE END
No, I'm not a Libertarian, I know what their political viewpoint entails and I'm not interested in being a part of it.

I choose B all the way. The Constitution was given the Bill of Rights for a reason, and that is to prevent the government from having too much power. You as a Republican should understand that and want the same thing, seeing as how traditionally Republicans want a limited amount of government control on citizens. Kind of ironic if you ask me.

During the Civil War Lincoln suspended habeas corpus, and imprisoned and hung as traitors who undermined the war effort and supported the enemy. During WWII FDR did similar things including relocating and confining Japanese and German Americans because of the real threat of espionage and sabotage. By comparison what GWB has done since 911 with the Patriot Act is small potatoes. The left wants to tie our hands while the Islamofascists plot to kill us. Today 6 Muslim immigrants 3 of whom were in the country illegally were arrested for plotting to kill GIs at Fort Dix. A video store clerk who was asked to make a DVD from a videotape these idiots made threatening Jihad turned them in to the FBI. Do you think the clerk violated these yoots' right to privacy? Shall we hope the ACLU steps in, we don't want to violate anyone's rights, legal or illegal immigrants notwithstanding.

[BIG BLUE DEFENSIVE END]

Originally posted by Pudlugger
During the Civil War Lincoln suspended habeas corpus, and imprisoned and hung as traitors who undermined the war effort and supported the enemy. During WWII FDR did similar things including relocating and confining Japanese and German Americans because of the real threat of espionage and sabotage. By comparison what GWB has done since 911 with the Patriot Act is small potatoes. The left wants to tie our hands while the Islamofascists plot to kill us. Today 6 Muslim immigrants 3 of whom were in the country illegally were arrested for plotting to kill GIs at Fort Dix. A video store clerk who was asked to make a DVD from a videotape these idiots made threatening Jihad turned them in to the FBI. Do you think the clerk violated these yoots' right to privacy? Shall we hope the ACLU steps in, we don't want to violate anyone's rights, legal or illegal immigrants notwithstanding.

Yes, and our government apologized for it being wrong. As far as I'm concerned, if you're not a U.S. citizen, then you do not enjoy the same rights as a legal citizen and are subject to the penalty of the law.

[Pudlugger]

Originally posted by BIG BLUE DEFENSIVE END
Yes, and our government apologized for it being wrong. As far as I'm concerned, if you're not a U.S. citizen, then you do not enjoy the same rights as a legal citizen and are subject to the penalty of the law.

Yes, after 50 years of living free and having defeated Hitler and Tojo the American people came to view those measures as extreme, but what would have happened had they not done this? We can't assume that no good came of the relocation as many of those people were indeed spies and saboteurs. The problem was we couldn't tell who was and who was not a threat. In 1942 folks expected Japan to invade the West Coast. There was a real threat. What I'm saying is that it is sometimes necessary to cede some of our civil liberties to protect the citizenry and the country from real threats.

The Constitution is not a suicide pact. If we can't wire tap people in this country talking to known or suspected terrorists abroad then we are foolish and leaving ourselves open to attack. Tracing wire transfers of money to foreign terrorists and thereby establishing intel on their operations is another example. Both of these efforts were severely impaired when the NYT ran their expose condemning Bush and Justice for protecting us from terrorists. It is these sorts of actions that the Patriot Act allows and I'm all for it.

[BIG BLUE DEFENSIVE END]

Originally posted by Pudlugger
Yes, after 50 years of living free and having defeated Hitler and Tojo the American people came to view those measures as extreme, but what would have happened had they not done this? We can't assume that no good came of the relocation as many of those people were indeed spies and saboteurs. The problem was we couldn't tell who was and who was not a threat. In 1942 folks expected Japan to invade the West Coast. There was a real threat. What I'm saying is that it is sometimes necessary to cede some of our civil liberties to protect the citizenry and the country from real threats.

The Constitution is not a suicide pact. If we can't wire tap people in this country talking to known or suspected terrorists abroad then we are foolish and leaving ourselves open to attack. Tracing wire transfers of money to foreign terrorists and thereby establishing intel on their operations is another example. Both of these efforts were severely impaired when the NYT ran their expose condemning Bush and Justice for protecting us from terrorists. It is these sorts of actions that the Patriot Act allows and I'm all for it.

In my opinion, giving up your civil liberties is a slap in the face to every real Patriot who ever served our country, and a disgrace to the men and women who died fighting for our flag, our flag that represents an unwaivering freedom from oppression. Unity, strength, and honor has brought our country through the toughest of times, not succumbing to the will of others and surrendering what makes being an American something to be proud of. Giving up and giving in are not the solution to the problem, standing strong an united as Americans is. Our forefathers wrote the Constitution and the Bill of Rights to protect our freedoms under any circumstances, and what George W. Bush did was illegal and dishonorable to the sanctity of those documents and the men and women who fought courageously to preserve them. A wise man once said, "A man who is willing to give up his liberties in fear does not deserve them at all."

[Pudlugger]

Nothing that was done or is being done is illegal. The Patriot Act provides for certain interventions under specific conditions just as in the case of wiretaps in criminal cases and in espionage. If you are so concerned about the Constitution please quote me the section where it addresses the right to abortion or the separation of church and state. Meanwhile, if our forefathers had to fight the enemies with the ridiculous rules of engagement and PC policies that are being foisted on our armed forces and Homeland Security they never would have won any of the wars fought since 1776. You need to be more concerned about protecting this nation from its enemies foreign and domestic than whether a wiretap of some terrorist sympathizer phoning Ben Laden has had his rights violated. Get some perspective please.

[BIG BLUE DEFENSIVE END]

Originally posted by Pudlugger
Nothing that was done or is being done is illegal. The Patriot Act provides for certain interventions under specific conditions just as in the case of wiretaps in criminal cases and in espionage. If you are so concerned about the Constitution please quote me the section where it addresses the right to abortion or the separation of church and state. Meanwhile, if our forefathers had to fight the enemies with the ridiculous rules of engagement and PC policies that are being foisted on our armed forces and Homeland Security they never would have won any of the wars fought since 1776. You need to be more concerned about protecting this nation from its enemies foreign and domestic than whether a wiretap of some terrorist sympathizer phoning Ben Laden has had his rights violated. Get some perspective please.

The Patriot Act is unconstitutional. It invades an individual's right to privacy and is a form of illegal search and seizure, which is protected by the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution. In Roe v. Wade, the Supreme Court ruled that abortion was legal and upheld, as making it illegal impeded an individual's privacy rights and the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution. Finally, for your separation of church and state question, it is implied in the First Amendment to the United States Constitution, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof," but I guess you didn't catch that in your research. I have a great perspective, and that is to keep my rights and not give them away. I want to make sure that my children can grow up given the same rights that I was. The only reason that people support the Patriot Act and giving up personal liberties is because they have been scared into it by propaganda. It's all a ploy to take away more rights and give them to the government, and I'm going to stand by keeping my rights any day than to give them up because I'm afraid of a terrorist attack. Through dilligence and listening to security officials the 44 times leading up to the September 11, 2001, it all could have been prevented, but it wasn't, as all 44 times our administration sat idly by and did nothing, no phone taps, no investigations, nothing. I find it funny how now all of the sudden it is of the greatest importance for Americans to sacrifice their personal freedoms when nothing was being done to the events that led up to the legislation of the Patriot Act. With all of that being said and out of the way, why was information leaked to the public that Bush called for wire-tapping of citizens? If it were perfectly legal and acceptable, then why didn't he just come out and tell everyone what he was doing instead of trying to hide it?

[BILLYFRED0000]

I just had to pitch in without reading as I am at work.
This is ongoing. Rush has said for years that the elitist left pro choice group is aborting themselves out of votes. These same groups are declining in birthrate as well as demographics while consevative birthrates are considerably higher. The Dems do not know it yet but by the next Census the conservatives will literally start to outnumber the left..... The left's own policy of grabbing immigrants to vote for them is an outgrowth of this policy. Which is why they do not want to close the borders.

[BIG BLUE DEFENSIVE END]

Originally posted by BILLYFRED0000
I just had to pitch in without reading as I am at work.
This is ongoing. Rush has said for years that the elitist left pro choice group is aborting themselves out of votes. These same groups are declining in birthrate as well as demographics while consevative birthrates are considerably higher. The Dems do not know it yet but by the next Census the conservatives will literally start to outnumber the left..... The left's own policy of grabbing immigrants to vote for them is an outgrowth of this policy. Which is why they do not want to close the borders.

Rush Limbaugh is a big, blubbering idiot who spews out nothing but propaganda. I put him on a list with Bill O'Reilly.

[BILLYFRED0000]

Originally posted by BIG BLUE DEFENSIVE END
The Patriot Act is unconstitutional. It invades an individual's right to privacy and is a form of illegal search and seizure, which is protected by the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution. In Roe v. Wade, the Supreme Court ruled that abortion was legal and upheld, as making it illegal impeded an individual's privacy rights and the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution. Finally, for your separation of church and state question, it is implied in the First Amendment to the United States Constitution, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof," but I guess you didn't catch that in your research. I have a great perspective, and that is to keep my rights and not give them away. I want to make sure that my children can grow up given the same rights that I was. The only reason that people support the Patriot Act and giving up personal liberties is because they have been scared into it by propaganda. It's all a ploy to take away more rights and give them to the government, and I'm going to stand by keeping my rights any day than to give them up because I'm afraid of a terrorist attack. Through dilligence and listening to security officials the 44 times leading up to the September 11, 2001, it all could have been prevented, but it wasn't, as all 44 times our administration sat idly by and did nothing, no phone taps, no investigations, nothing. I find it funny how now all of the sudden it is of the greatest importance for Americans to sacrifice their personal freedoms when nothing was being done to the events that led up to the legislation of the Patriot Act. With all of that being said and out of the way, why was information leaked to the public that Bush called for wire-tapping of citizens? If it were perfectly legal and acceptable, then why didn't he just come out and tell everyone what he was doing instead of trying to hide it?

I hate to tell you this but the 14th has nothing to do with abortion. The right to life is garaunteed not the right to stop life.
Privacy had nothing to do with abortion. You commit most crimes in private forms one way or another but they are still crimes. Roe V Wade was the biggest miscarriage of justice in the last 100 years. And the reasoning is quite simple. If you don't want to have a baby abstain. These folks want to do as they please and then stop a life. The only time abortion should be considered is rape, incest, and a threat to the mother. It should not be part of a choice since the original choice is to abstain or take the proper precautions. And if they fail, you already made your choice. Grow up and live with it.

And oh BTW, the first was only to prohibit the government from declaring a national religion which is why the founding fathers left England. Everything else now done in the name of that amendment is a farce and it is beginning to become apparent.

Lastly, if you tell your enemies your tactics, they will change theirs. Any lame brain can figure that one out.

[ASUFrisbeeStud]

Not sure why this hasn't gotten closed yet....

[mistanice]

Originally posted by ASUFrisbeeStud
Not sure why this hasn't gotten closed yet....

because this thread deals with morality, not politics :p

[BILLYFRED0000]

Originally posted by ASUFrisbeeStud
Not sure why this hasn't gotten closed yet....
Because there are those in need of education. I have studied these issues for 20 years and then some.. Terrorists are an outshoot of the fact that no one can take us in a setpiece match.
These guys were killing long before our "policies" came "in conflict" with their region. The simple truth is that fanatics have always existed and claimed their divine right to do as they please.
And no, it has absofragginlutely nothing to do with our policies.
It never has. Anyone who preaches that is simply shortsighted and does not understand the true nature of fanaticism. And history is so replete with examples such as Imperial Japan and the Reichstag. Anyone ever hear of Pol Pot? Stalin?

[BILLYFRED0000]

Originally posted by BIG BLUE DEFENSIVE END
Rush Limbaugh is a big, blubbering idiot who spews out nothing but propaganda. I put him on a list with Bill O'Reilly.

Rush is an entertainer and he readily admits that himself. But some of his facts are accurate.

[DDBooger]

Originally posted by BILLYFRED0000
Rush is an entertainer and he readily admits that himself. But some of his facts are accurate. except for how many doctors write his prescriptions! ;)

[BILLYFRED0000]

Originally posted by DDBooger
except for how many doctors write his prescriptions! ;)
Yes don't you just love how far democratically elected libs will go out of their way to try to stop someone who really gets it.

[DDBooger]

Originally posted by BILLYFRED0000
Yes don't you just love how far democratically elected libs will go out of their way to try to stop someone who really gets it. yes they forced fed his big mouth all those pills :rolleyes: in order to prove his points wrong. and i suppose when democratic transgressions occur the right turns a blind eye?

[BILLYFRED0000]

Originally posted by DDBooger
yes they forced fed his big mouth all those pills :rolleyes: in order to prove his points wrong. and i suppose when democratic transgressions occur the right turns a blind eye?

Do you have any facts or just ill will. I happen to follow with great concern the tactics used to get Rush to court. The main one that really bugged me was doctor patient privacy. The liberal
idiot in Palmdale with his liberal idiot judge decided that they could in fact subpoena persona records even tho the law says otherwise. And it was the only way they were ever going to get Rush in trouble. Notice that I did not say he was not guilty. What I said was that they did everything they could to get a private citizen in trouble. Guilty till proven innocent. It made me so angry to see a private citizen at the mercy of an unjust court.
It has happened before and it will again.

[DDBooger]

Originally posted by BILLYFRED0000
Do you have any facts or just ill will. I happen to follow with great concern the tactics used to get Rush to court. The main one that really bugged me was doctor patient privacy. The liberal
idiot in Palmdale with his liberal idiot judge decided that they could in fact subpoena persona records even tho the law says otherwise. And it was the only way they were ever going to get Rush in trouble. Notice that I did not say he was not guilty. What I said was that they did everything they could to get a private citizen in trouble. Guilty till proven innocent. It made me so angry to see a private citizen at the mercy of an unjust court.
It has happened before and it will again. lol poor rush, i wonder if he used the liberal defense that drug addiction is a disease? Hell fred so i suppose the case was thrown out right? i mean, if what you say is true then the lawyers and judge must have broken all kinds of laws.

[BILLYFRED0000]

Originally posted by DDBooger
lol poor rush, i wonder if he used the liberal defense that drug addiction is a disease? Hell fred so i suppose the case was thrown out right? i mean, if what you say is true then the lawyers and judge must have broken all kinds of laws.

They did. But when you use liberal activist judges you can get around laws. And Florida is riddled with it.

[DDBooger]

Originally posted by BILLYFRED0000
They did. But when you use liberal activist judges you can get around laws. And Florida is riddled with it. damn conspiring libs!:mad: lol this reaks of Clinton excuses, you know the one's made after his impeachment. despite being guilty, it was the damn right wing conspiracy! i wonder if you defended him?

[Old Tiger]

Originally posted by JasperDog94
Here's my litmus test:

1. Abortion: (A) Pro life or (B)pro choice
2. Taxes: (A) Everyone should pay same percentage or (B) the rich should pay a higher percentage
3. Immigration: (A) Enforce the borders and no amnesty or (B) selective enforcement of the borders and amnesty
4. Energy: (A) Build more refineries and drill for more oil or (B) protect the environment at all costs
5. Spending: (A) Smaller federal government or (B) larger federal government
6. Healthcare: (A) Privatized or (B) Socialized

A - Conservatives
B - Liberals

Where do you fall? B, B, A, A, A, B


What does this say about me?

[DDBooger]

Originally posted by Tiger WR
B, B, A, A, A, B


What does this say about me? that you are an evil liberal conspirator! :clap: ;)

[BILLYFRED0000]

Originally posted by DDBooger
damn conspiring libs!:mad: lol this reaks of Clinton excuses, you know the one's made after his impeachment. despite being guilty, it was the damn right wing conspiracy! i wonder if you defended him?

No because Clinton lied to the Grand Jury. If he had told the truth
I would have. But if he lied then he may have used the office of the president in other inappropriate manners.
All Rush did was get addicted to pain pills which happens to people all the time. They get to go to rehab. Rush gets to spend a wad of money defending himself. Seem fair to you?

[DDBooger]

Originally posted by BILLYFRED0000
No because Clinton lied to the Grand Jury. If he had told the truth
I would have. But if he lied then he may have used the office of the president in other inappropriate manners.
All Rush did was get addicted to pain pills which happens to people all the time. They get to go to rehab. Rush gets to spend a wad of money defending himself. Seem fair to you? addiction wasn't the crime, shopping doctors was! look man its a moot point, i could care less for either guy ;)

[Pudlugger]

Originally posted by Tiger WR
B, B, A, A, A, B


What does this say about me?

That someday when, hopefully you are successful enough to pay taxes, and have a wife and children to worry about, you might become a conservative since you are halfway there now. :D

[BIG BLUE DEFENSIVE END]

Originally posted by BILLYFRED0000
I hate to tell you this but the 14th has nothing to do with abortion. The right to life is garaunteed not the right to stop life.
Privacy had nothing to do with abortion. You commit most crimes in private forms one way or another but they are still crimes. Roe V Wade was the biggest miscarriage of justice in the last 100 years. And the reasoning is quite simple. If you don't want to have a baby abstain. These folks want to do as they please and then stop a life. The only time abortion should be considered is rape, incest, and a threat to the mother. It should not be part of a choice since the original choice is to abstain or take the proper precautions. And if they fail, you already made your choice. Grow up and live with it.

And oh BTW, the first was only to prohibit the government from declaring a national religion which is why the founding fathers left England. Everything else now done in the name of that amendment is a farce and it is beginning to become apparent.

Lastly, if you tell your enemies your tactics, they will change theirs. Any lame brain can figure that one out.

Well, apparently in your studies you failed to throroughly read and interpret the Constitution, along with failing to also learn and understand the reasons for the rulings that the Supreme Court makes. Do a little research and figure it out on your own and you'll find exactly what I wrote. There are privacy rights that every American citizen is entitled to, as they have the right to do with their own body as they wish. Who are you or anyone else to say what a woman can decide? As far as I'm concerned, if you're going to outlaw abortion, you need to outlaw all forms of contraception and make males masturbating against the law, because everytime a condom is worn a baby is prevented from being born, and everytime a man ejaculates, sperm that could have went to the development of a living being is wasted. Any of those methods as previously stated are stopping a human life, just as abortion is, but I don't see anybody advocating the outlaw of such measures. As far as the First Amendment, I truly feel sorry for your ability to comprehend what is written, because you can't be further from correct. I read ahead to one of your previous posts and you said some people need to be educated, well sir, I suggest you go pull out a history book and do some research and heed your own advice for once, because I know what I'm talking about.

[BIG BLUE DEFENSIVE END]

Originally posted by BILLYFRED0000
Do you have any facts or just ill will. I happen to follow with great concern the tactics used to get Rush to court. The main one that really bugged me was doctor patient privacy. The liberal
idiot in Palmdale with his liberal idiot judge decided that they could in fact subpoena persona records even tho the law says otherwise. And it was the only way they were ever going to get Rush in trouble. Notice that I did not say he was not guilty. What I said was that they did everything they could to get a private citizen in trouble. Guilty till proven innocent. It made me so angry to see a private citizen at the mercy of an unjust court.
It has happened before and it will again.

Wait a second, you're complaining that a man was caught abusing prescription medication, but then you want to support the Patriot Act and giving up individual rights. From what I can deduct, you seem to be a person who supports the suspension of habeus corpus, and you're talking about a national icon treated unfairly because he was caught doing something illegal, something that he admitted to? This unjust court you're talking about is something that the Patriot Act upholds, and they can just as easily come pick you, me, or anyone else up and lock them up and throw away the key in the name of preventing terrorism. I don't understand your positions sometimes.

[BIG BLUE DEFENSIVE END]

No response? I'm suprised.

[BILLYFRED0000]

Originally posted by BIG BLUE DEFENSIVE END
Well, apparently in your studies you failed to throroughly read and interpret the Constitution, along with failing to also learn and understand the reasons for the rulings that the Supreme Court makes. Do a little research and figure it out on your own and you'll find exactly what I wrote. There are privacy rights that every American citizen is entitled to, as they have the right to do with their own body as they wish. Who are you or anyone else to say what a woman can decide? As far as I'm concerned, if you're going to outlaw abortion, you need to outlaw all forms of contraception and make males masturbating against the law, because everytime a condom is worn a baby is prevented from being born, and everytime a man ejaculates, sperm that could have went to the development of a living being is wasted. Any of those methods as previously stated are stopping a human life, just as abortion is, but I don't see anybody advocating the outlaw of such measures. As far as the First Amendment, I truly feel sorry for your ability to comprehend what is written, because you can't be further from correct. I read ahead to one of your previous posts and you said some people need to be educated, well sir, I suggest you go pull out a history book and do some research and heed your own advice for once, because I know what I'm talking about.

I am sorry but point out "right to privacy" specifically in the constitution. get back to me. If it is about choice, choose not to have sex if you do not want the responsibility of raising a child.

[BILLYFRED0000]

Originally posted by BIG BLUE DEFENSIVE END
Wait a second, you're complaining that a man was caught abusing prescription medication, but then you want to support the Patriot Act and giving up individual rights. From what I can deduct, you seem to be a person who supports the suspension of habeus corpus, and you're talking about a national icon treated unfairly because he was caught doing something illegal, something that he admitted to? This unjust court you're talking about is something that the Patriot Act upholds, and they can just as easily come pick you, me, or anyone else up and lock them up and throw away the key in the name of preventing terrorism. I don't understand your positions sometimes.

I am sorry, your IQ just hit the floor. I do not support the Patriot
act. Never said I did.

[BIG BLUE DEFENSIVE END]

Originally posted by BILLYFRED0000
I am sorry but point out "right to privacy" specifically in the constitution. get back to me. If it is about choice, choose not to have sex if you do not want the responsibility of raising a child.

The Fourth Amendment is not limited to protecting elements of privacy or personal autonomy, but rather applies pervasively to virtually all aspects of law and life, as determined by the Supreme Court. Personally, I'm pro-life, but politically, I'm pro-choice.

About the Patriot Act, sorry, I took one of Pudluggers' rants for being yours I suppose and accused you of something you didn't say, my mistake, I was wrong in my assertion.

[BILLYFRED0000]

While I agree that the right to privacy pervades from the 4rth,
it is still "inferred". The problem with the Roe V Wade arguement is the position that a woman should be free to deal with it because it is her body. Following that logic, Prostitution should be legal. It is her body. But it is not. REason, morality. So that is what is known as a double standard or hypocrisy. It makes more sense to err on the side of morality which they do vs prostitution, especially since responsible actions concerning her body during sex or abstinence or other responsible courses can preclude an abortion from being necessary. In other words, don't
party like it is 1999 and expect and easy out. Have enough guts
to live with the consequences of your actions. In the end it is not law because it is not privacy. Privacy is not the real issue.

[BILLYFRED0000]

Taking the prostitution analogy further, some would say it is illegal because it involves a man and his acts as well. The same is true for procreation. IN fact, it is my opinion that the woman
abrogated her rights to her body when she became impregnated
by a man with consensual sex. The man should have some say over the consequences to the fetus and not the woman alone.
Simply put, it would not be there without him. Therefore it is his responsibility as well which is proven time and again on paternity suits. That is the basis for my disdain for Roe V Wade.

Putting it crudely, the man is the one getting screwed while the woman gets a "choice".

[88bobcats]

Originally posted by JasperDog94
Here's my litmus test:

1. Abortion: (A) Pro life or (B)pro choice
2. Taxes: (A) Everyone should pay same percentage or (B) the rich should pay a higher percentage
3. Immigration: (A) Enforce the borders and no amnesty or (B) selective enforcement of the borders and amnesty
4. Energy: (A) Build more refineries and drill for more oil or (B) protect the environment at all costs
5. Spending: (A) Smaller federal government or (B) larger federal government
6. Healthcare: (A) Privatized or (B) Socialized

A - Conservatives
B - Liberals

Where do you fall?

JasperDog94 has suggested an interesting measurement method.

In my opinion, the "B, B, A, A, A, B" response is indicative not of a moderate position, but of a self-seeking, "I'm goin' to get mine" position.

It's reminiscent of a guy I know who wants to get off work from a job he didn't have to compete too vigorously for (3-A), fill up his car with cheap gas (4-A), sleep with as many girls as he can and not care about or want to deal with the ramifications (1-B), until he catches a disease he wants cured quickly, discretely, and (most of all) cheaply (6-B); but he doesn't want to pay the increased taxes (2-B) required to fund the behemoth (5-A) required to provide socialized health care.

He wants everything conveniently available with little intervention into his time, his efforts, and, most important of all, his wallet. My buddy wants it all and he wants someone else to provide it and/or pay for it.

Another possible arrangement of the categories is:

A - Conservatives
B - Liberals
B,B,A,A,A,B - Gets Mine

[BILLYFRED0000]

Now that is what I call "politics" and the left. Most of them fall into that category. Get Mine and everybody else's that will let me.

[BIG BLUE DEFENSIVE END]

Originally posted by BILLYFRED0000
While I agree that the right to privacy pervades from the 4rth,
it is still "inferred". The problem with the Roe V Wade arguement is the position that a woman should be free to deal with it because it is her body. Following that logic, Prostitution should be legal. It is her body. But it is not. REason, morality. So that is what is known as a double standard or hypocrisy. It makes more sense to err on the side of morality which they do vs prostitution, especially since responsible actions concerning her body during sex or abstinence or other responsible courses can preclude an abortion from being necessary. In other words, don't
party like it is 1999 and expect and easy out. Have enough guts
to live with the consequences of your actions. In the end it is not law because it is not privacy. Privacy is not the real issue.

That is an interesting point of view, can't say that I've heard many people put it like that. :thinking: