Generational Dynamics World View News

[Bob Butler]

But it is ok, even encouraged, for POCs to denigrate whites, especially white men as racists and Nazis. The hypocrisy of the POCs has reached epic levels. The road to genocide is clear here.

Bob never mentions this. We know why. Of course, he's special needs, so that explains as much as I ever needed to know.

Just to counter Cool Breeze’s habitual insults and hate. Some christian. He’s going to give them a bad name. Sorry. I’d rather he just drop it. This is just cluttering John’s thread, though some of it is pertinent. Even Cool can stimulate thought.

In my youth it made sense to get a good education and a good professional job. This allowed me to buy good medical insurance. When I developed special needs, the insurance took care of it. I have paid a little more since the tumor to get the house cleaned weekly and get Meals on Wheels. The first is more laziness than need and the second is far more to get one good balanced meal a weekday than any threat of starvation. What is necessary for some is a bonus for me. Is getting decent education, job and insurance a crime? Should I avoid the balanced meal? I was the same person before the special needs as after. My politics is slowly refining. That is part of why I’m here. Hanging out with people who keep agreeing me is not so exciting or involving. But, anyway…

There seem to be two opposing rival questionable groups. On one side are the racists and Nazi. The join voluntarily out of hate.

On the other hand there are minorities. Some come as they believe the west is their best option. Some came on slave ships. Some are natives. All that is fine.

Still, a few have what I call the ghetto mindset. The extreme is found in inner cities where many are involved in drug gangs, turf wars and criminal activity to support a drug habit. They are just as, um, deplorable, as the racists and Nazi.

You can only admire the people who chose the west. You can pity the natives and those who came on slave ships, or at least their ancestors. Neither group would fit what Hillary might describe as deplorable. Most of these minorities are just trying to work it out and settle into a nice comfortable suburb. John was right to say these groups are not the problem.

Those would include those with the ghetto mindset, the racists, and the Nazi. You can have sympathy even for both opposing sets of deplorable people. The ghetto mindset people do have undesirable traits made clear by the FBI, but were originally forced into their ghetto niche by prejudice. The racists and Nazi see the same unfortunate traits as the FBI, and assume falsely they also apply to all other members of the minority group. In a way the two groups feed off each other. The ghetto people exist in great part because of the prejudice against them. The prejudice exists because there are people to hate.

Me? I’m not racist, Nazi or ghetto dweller. None of this dance touches me. I’d rather it all vanish, but neither set of deplorables will go away before the other. They perpetuate each other.

I mention this as no POC has denigrated me. The POC don’t degenerate whites, only the racists and Nazi. Well, the racists and Nazi seem to be worth degenerating, the ghetto drug people no less.

[FullMoon]

You seem to be opposing democracy. Up to half the people can oppose something that the people want. If most of a sanctuary city wants to help, they do. If a minority would prefer that the help not be given, that is a problem with how democracy works. You can’t have a minority vetoing what the people want.

What most don't understand is that we do not live in a pure democracy. We live in a Democratic REPUBLIC. It was set up that way on purpose. The founding fathers did not want the majority to be able to trample the rights of the minorities. They did not want the "rules" made by popular opinion.

The intent was to have people elect responsible individuals who would make the correct choices after serious study and debate.

Having said that, you need to be more specific about what it is that the people supposedly want that is being prevented.

Right now the Democrats are pursuing the popular vote and the Republicans are gerrymandering and filibustering. The shoe has been on the other foot at times. Regardless, I would prefer the practices stopped. The crisis is the time to do it. The Republicans have become so addicted to the practices that they will force the Democrats to do the stopping.

Right now the Democrats are pursuing a more and more socialist agenda. Of course they are going to be opposed in this, as the MAJORITY don't want this.

Right now I believe 32 states are fully controlled (State House, State Senate, and Governor) by Republicans while only 18 are fully controlled by Democrats. That means that in our system, the Republicans should have much more say than the Democrats. It means that they are in fact the Majority.

If you don’t see conservatives resisting change and progressives seeking progress you aren’t looking very hard. I’ve gone through the big problems in prior crises often enough: noble privilege, colonial imperialism, slavery, government regulation of the economy, containing autocratic government, criminals in chief, prejudice, use of the law to oppress minorities. In the crisis the progressives get sick of the long extant flaws and force change. In the other three turnings? Not so much. But if you can’t see the conservative factions resisting changes to traditional wrongs, you should look a little harder.

The only thing "progressive" about the Democrats is that they have progressively made things worse through their plans and programs, the vast majority of which have backfired in serious ways.

Noble priveledge and imperialism were fought against in our Revolution. Slavery was supported and expanded by the DEMOCRATS. Government regulation of the economy also has its roots with the Democrats. Containing autocratic government was championed by the Republicans (over FDRs Presidency for Life). Criminals in Chief, as I stated before, are on both sides of the aisle. Prejudice and the use of law to oppress minorities was the main idea of Democrats in the South.

Liberals want to force change. FORCE is the operative word. They want to FORCE you to pay for their programs, FORCE you to behave the way they want you to, FORCE you to believe what they believe.

The problems of prejudice manifest and are fought in various ways in various cities. We had the problems of bussing in Boston. Miami centers more on Cuba than most cities. In Chicago fighting crime by attacking minorities without due process became part of the police culture. Ending prejudice is a long hard road travelled differently in different places.

I can agree with you somewhat here. Racism is wrong, by ANYONE. And I also agree that we have a serious problem with police practices in the USA.

Hopefully, seeing the racists attacking the police on January 6th will change their perspective somewhat.

Here is where you go off the rails. Suddenly you decide to paint everyone in the Jan 6 Capitol riot as a racist. I would bet that you think every single Trump supporter is a racist. Unfortunately, you have just decided that a specific group is "all the same way". Which is what RACISTS do.

I agree that there is a problem, but the elected officials are often trying to do what is necessary and right for those that elected them. Yes, the police problems in Chicago, Milwaukee and elsewhere can involve elected good guys and police bad guys.

I can't believe that anyone would say that the elected officials in our major cities are the "good guys". They have collectively made things MUCH WORSE in almost each and every one of our urban areas. They are at this point pandering to an electorate that doesn't want their criminal relatives arrested, nor do they want to have to pay bail for what are most often multiple repeat offenders.

If the government had believed in regulating the economy during the Gilded Age, perhaps some of your preferred alternatives to Social Security would have happened. The problem was suddenly starting correcting things in the middle of the Great Depressions’s lack of funding. FDR had to borrow against the future. Sure, with 20 20 hindsight it would have been better to slowly solve the crisis problems before they become a crisis, or count on war profits from a conflict that hadn’t happened yet.

Veneration of FDR is sorely misplaced. FDR's actions and policies did little other than prolong and exacerbate the Depression. And then he made things worse in a Long Term way by introducing deficit spending. "Borrowing against the Future" is a great way to rob people who cannot vote yet in order to hand money to people who can vote. It is the biggest financial crime in American history.

The Depression was fixed by the bankruptcy of speculators and the collective savings of people from that point forward. Not by wage and price fixing, not by taking us off the gold standard, not by the National Recovery Act, and certainly not by Social Security.

In the S&H high and awakening we did tax and spend liberalism. In the unravelling and early crisis we did small government. I suspect we’ll never get it quite right and will have to deal with overshoot in both directions. After years of small government and sending jobs abroad, it is time to change course.

Tax and spend liberalism has bankrupted the country. We haven't had "small government" since before FDR. Sending manufacturing to China has been a colossal mistake.

And yes, it is time to change course.

Thank you, Navigator!

[Navigator]

We live by the will of the majority limited by the rights of the individual. We were dealing with the example of sanctuary cities. In sanctuary cities the will of the majority includes a desire to help people. Presumably, the elected representatives determine how to do this after serious study and debate. The question is how any individual’s rights are defeated by paying for the help out of the general fund. Many services are provided from the general fund. While you may object to helping people without being asked, is this lack of asking in the Bill of Rights? Is there something in there that says you have a right to never be on the losing side of a democratic vote? If so, I am unaware.

Here is a great article on the funding of some services for illegal immigrants:

https://www.heritage.org/immigration/co ... g-the-left

Record numbers of illegal immigrants are entering the country illegally and spreading throughout the interior of United States—and it’s playing out in a sadly predictable way.

Sanctuary cities like Washington, D.C., New York City and Chicago are sagging under the weight of the cost required to support these new arrivals. Now their mayors are complaining about it, apparently surprised that their poor policies have played out, well … poorly.

Of course, border communities have been hit even harder by this problem. They’ve been struggling to cope with it for years. The difference is that they are suffering due to their geographic location, not because of policies they’ve adopted. But their problems have increased dramatically since the Biden administration implemented its open-border policies.

Those policies are expensive, imposing tens of billions of dollars in costs on state and local governments and U.S. taxpayers every year. Increasingly, those costs are incurred by states nowhere near the southwest border.

>>> Of Migrants and Mayors, Busloads and Budgets

Last year, a special committee found that taxpayers in Tennessee spend an extra $3.9 million per year to educate unaccompanied alien children in public schools and another $240,000 to provide them with state-funded health care.

Florida, too, has raised concerns over the cost of illegal immigration. Even before the Biden-inspired surge across the border, the state was paying $2 billion per year to provide health care and education for the nearly 800,000 illegal aliens living there.

Other services drain public purses, as well. Last year in New York, a $2.1 billion state fund paying unemployment and stimulus benefits to illegal aliens was exhausted in just three months

Last year, Philadelphia elected to budget $300,000 to publicly fund immigration attorneys for aliens facing deportation. The New York City Council budgeted $16.6 million the same year for the same purpose. Local taxpayers there should expect actual costs to exceed those budgets, as the numbers of illegal aliens, cases and appeals continue to rise.

Certainly, that’s been the case in Chicago, a city that continually increases its funding for its Legal Protection Fund and refuses to allow Immigration and Customs Enforcement access to police databases and information.

And then there are the costs associated with crime. Crimes committed by illegal aliens had been declining for years before Biden opened the borders. Since then, those numbers have skyrocketed in virtually every category of crime, from homicide and manslaughter to robbery and theft, from trafficking in drugs and weapons to sexual offenses.

Southern border governors are now bussing some illegal immigrants to New York City, Washington and Chicago, giving the mayors of those unashamedly pro-open borders and sanctuary cities a taste of what they’ve had to deal with for years.

And the mayors don’t like it a bit. New York City’s Eric Adams calls the situation there “horrific.”

“We need help,” pleads D.C. Mayor Muriel Bowser.

This is typical of many on the left. They push for a supposedly compassionate, globalist utopia. Then, when reality sets in and their pie in the sky agenda comes crashing down, they cry for help and bailouts.

>>> Congress Should Reject Biden Administration’s Asylum Rule and Ruin

Adams and Bowser are right on track. They are scrambling to find others to fix the mess their party’s open-border policies—and their own sanctuary city policies—have created.

It has never been clearer: The border crisis is not just a border town issue. We face an unprecedented, all-encompassing national security, fentanyl, crime and economic crisis that is seeping into every single state and community across the nation.

The crisis is not only unsustainable, it’s dangerous. The urgent first step is to cut off the flow of illegal aliens at the border, so we can get our heads above water before it’s too late.

The Biden administration and the left must reverse its open-border agenda. For the good of their cities, Bowser and Adams should lead the charge.

This piece originally appeared in The Sacramento Bee

[Bob Butler]

Here is a great article on the funding of some services for illegal immigrants...

I see you found nothing in the Bill of Rights. There is no guarantee that you will never be on the loosing side of an issue?

I would definitely agree we have a drug and crime issue. That exists quite independent of the immigration problem. It is wrong to associate it with the border. I do agree more care should be taken as to who gets a visa. Help should be given properly to those willing to help themselves. We should help refugees not try to solve their drug problems.

The steady state handling of the problem is being unbalanced lately by the Texas governor bussing the problem rather than trying to solve it. Yes, the victim cities need help. The federal government will have to bus resources from somewhere. Perhaps Texas?

[guest]

Here is a great article on the funding of some services for illegal immigrants...

I see you found nothing in the Bill of Rights. There is no guarantee that you will never be on the loosing side of an issue?

I would definitely agree we have a drug and crime issue. That exists quite independent of the immigration problem. It is wrong to associate it with the border. I do agree more care should be taken as to who gets a visa. Help should be given properly to those willing to help themselves. We should help refugees not try to solve their drug problems.

The steady state handling of the problem is being unbalanced lately by the Texas governor bussing the problem rather than trying to solve it. Yes, the victim cities need help. The federal government will have to bus resources from somewhere. Perhaps Texas?

You are ridiculous.

[Tom Mazanec]

BB, I fantasize about impeaching every judge who allows a mother to kill her baby in the first nine months of his or her life.

[John]

Monday September 12th, 2022

analysts from multiple media sources are expressing shock and surprise with how successful lightning strikes by Ukrainian forces over the weekend have recovered so much territory in Northeast donbas. as hundreds of Russian troops are being withdrawn, some analysts are even suggesting that Russia's army is collapsing.

it appears that Russia is moving its troops South, to defend Mariupol and other Southern cities in case Ukrainian forces attack there.

whatever happens next, it now appears that the Ukraine war has taken a decisive turn in Ukraine's favor, at least for the time being.

[El Cid M]

Monday September 12th, 2022

analysts from multiple media sources are expressing shock and surprise with how successful lightning strikes by Ukrainian forces over the weekend have recovered so much territory in Northeast donbas. as hundreds of Russian troops are being withdrawn, some analysts are even suggesting that Russia's army is collapsing.

it appears that Russia is moving its troops South, to defend Mariupol and other Southern cities in case Ukrainian forces attack there.

whatever happens next, it now appears that the Ukraine war has taken a decisive turn in Ukraine's favor, at least for the time being.

Do you really think that Russia will use nuclear weapons to stave off defeat?

How about a coup in Moscow?

[Bob Butler]

BB, I fantasize about impeaching every judge who allows a mother to kill her baby in the first nine months of his or her life.

I would sympathize if you were dealing with babies rather than a group of cells which could not survive outside the womb. Otherwise that is a sick daydream.

[Bob Butler]

You are ridiculous.

Try to contribute real ideas rather than insults and attacks.