US democracy-some are more equal than others

[BigBallinStalin]

OY, "JAPS."

"No, even blacks can better their situations..."
Since 2004, the US has cut the budget for high school and universities by 50%, that decreases anyone's chances, which inadvertently effects African-Americans even more so. And as I already stated before and as you keep vaguely stating, anybody can better their situation. You've failed to address exactly how good are these chances by avoiding the point and are trying to derail it elsewhere.

"...there is more help for college and high school scholarships out there availible for minorities than whites."
You're right, there are, but you're ignoring many other factors like blatant and passive racism, discrimination, and prejudice, which greatly affect one's chances at success in this country--more so than "white" peoples' chances.

"Sorry, but America is one of the leading countries in the world, prove me wrong with facts instead of open ended statements, never said Obama lets leave him out of this. And yes I know that there are more reason than the American dream ,which isnt dead you just refuse to recognize it, for the US being a Superpower, that is just the one I pointed out.
-Hahahaha! I've never said the US is not one of the leading countries in the world. I've argued that you're reasoning for it is weak. Please read my statements closely. Allow me to quote you (and further address this in great detail below), "'that's why America is one of the leading countries of the world.' That's rubbish." What is rubbish? The reasoning why yada yada yada... READ CLOSELY.
-It is interesting to see how you reacted to my mentioning Obama.
-You dare accuse me of refusing to recognize the American dream? Stop derailing the main topic, but nice try.
-Nice capital S for Superpower, big guy; I see you're getting real heated and not thinking clearly. Try calming down and reassessing things. Next time write something along the lines of: A + many other reasons; therefore, America is one of the leading countries in the world. Your first statement just made you seem very ignorant; however, I see that isn't exactly the case.


No I never siad if America was communist, communism doesnt work, it looks good on paper but like you pointed out someone always lets the power go to their head, read animal farm, it could help you out[/b]
-I'm making fun of your ridiculous statement through exaggeration, yet you've completely missed it, which is funnier. I'd suggest you read more into other histories other than American history if you're going to talk about communism. And then, once you've down that, try experiencing a "communist" country, and then one may think "OH NO! what exactly do such vague words mean like communism and democracy mean since they poorly describe the country itself." So you bringing up this whole America being a communist country is a tad bit silly. You could at least derive something of this thought from reading about other cultures other than the American one.
-Hahah, "animal farm," hahaha! Ok, understand my joke, then maybe realize suggesting I read something along the lines of my joke isn't so helpful after all. Hahah, perhaps YOU should read Animal Farm.
-----> OK, now try reading what you said very carefully. "America isnt a communist country so yes some people are better than others..." This pithy statement is obnoxious and doesn't properly address the matter at hand, so I felt obliged to joke around.
"Since America isn't a communist country, some people are better than others..." Do you understand how ignorant this sounds? Some people will always be better than others regardless of a country's government since there's no such thing as true equality. Logically, your portrayal of communism through your sentence suggests that Communism makes people NOT better than others (therefore equal), which is also wrong. Which, once again--god, I'm beating this joke's explanation to death, but---is why I made a joke about it. Hopefully, that all clears it up. Continuing on: "...but those that are on the down side have the chance to better their situations (as I said earlier, of course they have the "chance," but what you've failed to answer is "how much" of chance), "... thats why America is one of the leading countries in the world (BAM, this and this equals "why America is one of the leading countries in the world," WRONG, please read carefully, so I don't have to keep repeating myself)... "So cut the Some are more equal than others crap or you can move if thats how you feel." (Now that's just being rude, sir.)
It's amazing how you've completely missed the point on this one, but the feedback's been very entertaining. Thank you.

Also the electoral college was created to give the small states some say in the elections, if there was no college all you would need is those votes from the big cities to win and no one would give a d*** about states like Wyoming.

Hey, let's butcher history and ignore a multitude of factors by making a poorly thought-out reply and then dropping it here like a turd in the toilet.

"Hey, lets make us bs and post it in response because I dont like Japs comments. No, tell me how I butchered history and dropped it like a turd in a toilet, Im actually very educated on American History."
You are? Coming from a "very educated [man (I assume)] on American History, your original statements are blatantly ignorant and poorly grounded--especially that entertaining bit on communism and America. Which I'm still savoring at the moment.

How bout this: We ignore everything that was said earlier, and focus on the main point of this topic: the Electoral College. Seeing that you're a self-proclaimed person who is "very educated on American History," I'd love to hear your opinions about whether or not the Electoral College should be changed, how so, as well as addressing the previous statements made about the Electoral College. --Especially oVo's point of view.

[BigBallinStalin]

No, even blacks can better their situations, there is more help for college and high school scholarships out there availible for minorities than whites.

So yeah this is pretty much retarded. The single largest factor in determining a person's ability to become successful is socio-economic place. Even disregarding racism (like a few more scholarships compensate for that...) it is far harder for a poor person in the US to achieve a relatively high position than it is for a rich person. That's a well documented fact.

To say "Everybody in teh USA has the chance to make something of himself" is an incredibly stupid statement that shows some pretty big ignorance.

Thank you, enough said.

[Japs]

To deny that statment shows arrogance, a good friend of mine grew up in Peoria, Illinois. His mom is a drug addict and his dad is an achololic so there was really no income to live off of, his parents when I met him in my Junior Year of highschool were both around 70 (both dead now). His oldest sister is around 40 years older than him so he was really a accident child. He didnt want to be in the same situation as his parents so he studied hard in school (keep in mind those are crap schools) and got decent scholarship to a two-year college and transfered to a 4 year school after that, he is now attending med school in Texas.

Dont call me arrogant by sayin everyone has a chance, because its true everyone does. Somepeople just dont have the will power to go through with it.

[Japs]

Sorry BigBallinStalin , should have said I would like to consider myself well-versed, that was a poor word choice on my part earlier.

A person chance is only as good as the work they put into it. I dont mean latteraly like "my grandmother used to put in 18 hour shifts at the factory to feed my parents" I mean progressive work like, "My grandmother worked long hours to feed my parents and send them to college, or to go back to school."



Yes, I do tend to get heated quickly so, no I sometimes to not think through my post before I submit them, ill be sure to review them in the future, I agree, terrible communism argument on my part. I just wana know how I butched history?

Yes lets get back to the voting problems now. Let my collect my thoughts here on the college though, ill post in a bit.

[BigBallinStalin]

To deny that statment shows arrogance, a good friend of mine grew up in Peoria, Illinois. His mom is a drug addict and his dad is an achololic so there was really no income to live off of, his parents when I met him in my Junior Year of highschool were both around 70 (both dead now). His oldest sister is around 40 years older than him so he was really a accident child. He didnt want to be in the same situation as his parents so he studied hard in school (keep in mind those are crap schools) and got decent scholarship to a two-year college and transfered to a 4 year school after that, he is now attending med school in Texas.

Dont call me arrogant by sayin everyone has a chance, because its true everyone does. Somepeople just dont have the will power to go through with it.

I've talked to numerous homeless ranging from early 20s to late 70s, and what I've noticed is that when people lose hope, that's it. It's all over. So that's a big influence, but look my friend citing one example by using your good friend really isn't a strong claim. More instances of this happening being compared to contrary instances is more meaningful even though it's a touching story.

[AAFitz]

The reason it was implemented, was because the smaller states, would not agree to it, without this.

There is no question, that people from different regions do have different needs, and not having an equalizer means that there would be no democracy for those in small states with small populations. They would never have any influence, and would be taxed without any real influence over who was the President of their country.

It actually makes it more democratic, and not less democratic. If it was just a numbers game, the small populated areas would be completely ignored. The President wouldnt care one bit about them, and would only concentrate on the densely populated areas. Keeping them happy would insure winning the presidency, and would therefore create more bias than you can obviously imagine.

We all obviously do not have equal power as some, which is why the electoral college was set up in the first place. It was meant to insure that the general public of the entire country elected the President, and not just the greatest number, from a poorly distribution of areas. The inequality of a flat vote system would be many times more than what is in place now.

Sure its more complicated, and more messy, and its more difficult to understand the motivation, but it helps equalize our country, and remove inequity.

The main purpose of democracy is to give everyone a voice. Arguing to remove the electoral college, is an argument to allow bigger groups, to impose power over the small ones, and thereby remove their liberty, and virtually remove the idea of being taxed without representation, which is one of the founding principles of the country.

Democracy is meant to help everyone be equal. If the masses voted to steal the rights of small groups, they are not allowed to, because it is unconstitutional. In the same way, the large populated areas are not allowed to decide the president despite what the smaller ones have to say.

I wont say its a perfect system, but It sure is a more equal one, than the one you are suggesting, ironically and somewhat tragically.

[Snorri1234]

No, even blacks can better their situations, there is more help for college and high school scholarships out there availible for minorities than whites.

So yeah this is pretty much retarded. The single largest factor in determining a person's ability to become successful is socio-economic place. Even disregarding racism (like a few more scholarships compensate for that...) it is far harder for a poor person in the US to achieve a relatively high position than it is for a rich person. That's a well documented fact.

To say "Everybody in teh USA has the chance to make something of himself" is an incredibly stupid statement that shows some pretty big ignorance.

Gotta disagree with you there, buddy. In the usa you have a better chance and having a better life. Sure, you won't become a Rockefeller or any other rich family, but you can live in comfort, i.e own a house or land. Another thing is that racism is socio-economics. There hand in hand. Read up on some social problems that America has to deal with and you'll find that its the same thing

No that's bollocks. The rates of people moving from one social-economic scale to another are minimal in the US, and most of it is downwards. Yes some people do go from rags to riches, but that is pretty much a statistical fluke. They can't make your point for you because such things happen in every single society. It's like stating that any peasant in medieval Europe could move up to nobility by pointing at a ridiculously small number of them getting that honour, and not only that but those instances are greatly exaggerated just like in the US.

Young poor people are discouraged at every turn to make a better life. In order to make true the claim that "everybody has a big chance of getting better" you'll have to claim that circumstances do not affect someone's life in a very heavy part. Even ignoring the racism that is still very prevalent, there is so little aid and concern for those lesser off that it's ridiculous to suggest they got much of a chance.

And racism is not the same thing as socio-economics. Of course they're heavily intertwined but anyone can see why and it doesn't make them the same. Real racism still exists and it is helped and left to grow by the people who claim the worst of it is over.

[jonka]

The reason it was implemented, was because the smaller states, would not agree to it, without this.

There is no question, that people from different regions do have different needs, and not having an equalizer means that there would be no democracy for those in small states with small populations. They would never have any influence, and would be taxed without any real influence over who was the President of their country.

It actually makes it more democratic, and not less democratic. If it was just a numbers game, the small populated areas would be completely ignored. The President wouldnt care one bit about them, and would only concentrate on the densely populated areas. Keeping them happy would insure winning the presidency, and would therefore create more bias than you can obviously imagine.

We all obviously do not have equal power as some, which is why the electoral college was set up in the first place. It was meant to insure that the general public of the entire country elected the President, and not just the greatest number, from a poorly distribution of areas. The inequality of a flat vote system would be many times more than what is in place now.

Sure its more complicated, and more messy, and its more difficult to understand the motivation, but it helps equalize our country, and remove inequity.

The main purpose of democracy is to give everyone a voice. Arguing to remove the electoral college, is an argument to allow bigger groups, to impose power over the small ones, and thereby remove their liberty, and virtually remove the idea of being taxed without representation, which is one of the founding principles of the country.

Democracy is meant to help everyone be equal. If the masses voted to steal the rights of small groups, they are not allowed to, because it is unconstitutional. In the same way, the large populated areas are not allowed to decide the president despite what the smaller ones have to say.

I wont say its a perfect system, but It sure is a more equal one, than the one you are suggesting, ironically and somewhat tragically.

He obviously would care about the (24%, I think???) rural population, its not like a vote from a rural district would count less than an urban one, It's about the elimination of groups, grouping is almost always a bad thing. I'm not sure I agree with your reasoning or maybe I don't understand it, can you clarify?

PS. The US is not a democracy, we're what you would call a Republic.

[Burrito]

To deny that statment shows arrogance, a good friend of mine grew up in Peoria, Illinois. His mom is a drug addict and his dad is an achololic so there was really no income to live off of, his parents when I met him in my Junior Year of highschool were both around 70 (both dead now). His oldest sister is around 40 years older than him so he was really a accident child. He didnt want to be in the same situation as his parents so he studied hard in school (keep in mind those are crap schools) and got decent scholarship to a two-year college and transfered to a 4 year school after that, he is now attending med school in Texas.

Dont call me arrogant by sayin everyone has a chance, because its true everyone does. Somepeople just dont have the will power to go through with it.

I've talked to numerous homeless in new orleans ranging from early 20s to late 70s, and what I've noticed is that when people lose hope, that's it. It's all over. So that's a big influence, but look my friend citing one example by using your good friend really isn't a strong claim. More instances of this happening being compared to contrary instances is more meaningful even though it's a touching story.

Everyone in the U.S. does have a chance. Some situations for some people may be harder than others, but there is nothing saying that they can't do whatever they want to. They simply might have to work harder for it. Not everyone is born equal, but they all have the same chance to make something of themselves. If they work hard enough at it, they will accomplish what they want. the problem is that the majority of the America is fat, lazy, ignorant, and far more interested in the lives of others than their own.

[Frigidus]

To deny that statment shows arrogance, a good friend of mine grew up in Peoria, Illinois. His mom is a drug addict and his dad is an achololic so there was really no income to live off of, his parents when I met him in my Junior Year of highschool were both around 70 (both dead now). His oldest sister is around 40 years older than him so he was really a accident child. He didnt want to be in the same situation as his parents so he studied hard in school (keep in mind those are crap schools) and got decent scholarship to a two-year college and transfered to a 4 year school after that, he is now attending med school in Texas.

Dont call me arrogant by sayin everyone has a chance, because its true everyone does. Somepeople just dont have the will power to go through with it.

I've talked to numerous homeless in new orleans ranging from early 20s to late 70s, and what I've noticed is that when people lose hope, that's it. It's all over. So that's a big influence, but look my friend citing one example by using your good friend really isn't a strong claim. More instances of this happening being compared to contrary instances is more meaningful even though it's a touching story.

Everyone in the U.S. does have a chance. Some situations for some people may be harder than others, but there is nothing saying that they can't do whatever they want to. They simply might have to work harder for it. Not everyone is born equal, but they all have the same chance to make something of themselves. If they work hard enough at it, they will accomplish what they want. the problem is that the majority of the America is fat, lazy, ignorant, and far more interested in the lives of others than their own.

Bull. There are plenty of people that do almost nothing but work and still struggle to just provide for their families. What, outside of nostalgia and folklore, shows that climbing the social ladder in America is possible?

[Phatscotty]

No, even blacks can better their situations, there is more help for college and high school scholarships out there availible for minorities than whites.

So yeah this is pretty much retarded. The single largest factor in determining a person's ability to become successful is socio-economic place. Even disregarding racism (like a few more scholarships compensate for that...) it is far harder for a poor person in the US to achieve a relatively high position than it is for a rich person. That's a well documented fact.

To say "Everybody in teh USA has the chance to make something of himself" is an incredibly stupid statement that shows some pretty big ignorance.

Gotta disagree with you there, buddy. In the usa you have a better chance and having a better life. Sure, you won't become a Rockefeller or any other rich family, but you can live in comfort, i.e own a house or land. Another thing is that racism is socio-economics. There hand in hand. Read up on some social problems that America has to deal with and you'll find that its the same thing

No that's bollocks. The rates of people moving from one social-economic scale to another are minimal in the US, and most of it is downwards. Yes some people do go from rags to riches, but that is pretty much a statistical fluke. They can't make your point for you because such things happen in every single society. It's like stating that any peasant in medieval Europe could move up to nobility by pointing at a ridiculously small number of them getting that honour, and not only that but those instances are greatly exaggerated just like in the US.

Young poor people are discouraged at every turn to make a better life. In order to make true the claim that "everybody has a big chance of getting better" you'll have to claim that circumstances do not affect someone's life in a very heavy part. Even ignoring the racism that is still very prevalent, there is so little aid and concern for those lesser off that it's ridiculous to suggest they got much of a chance.

And racism is not the same thing as socio-economics. Of course they're heavily intertwined but anyone can see why and it doesn't make them the same. Real racism still exists and it is helped and left to grow by the people who claim the worst of it is over.

Bullshit! If you work hard and do the right thing in America, you CAN NOT BE STOPPED!

[spurgistan]

And we haven't even started talking about how FUBAR the Senate is. It's utterly ridiculous that the Midwest and Plains States basically hold our government hostage. I mean, MTG seems like a decent guy, but I don't think he's worth 15 of me, like his Senate vote is. Health care reform right now is being held hostage by senators from Maine, New Mexico, North Dakota (or is it South? No, wait, I don't care. One of them has Mount Rushmore) and Montana. Collectively, they have less than 5% of the US population. It's people that vote, not land, AAFitz. If we're going to start disenfranchising people, shouldn't we disenfranchise people at the federal level who benefit disordinately from local governments (rural areas get maaad money, relative to population)

[muy_thaiguy]

And we haven't even started talking about how FUBAR the Senate is. It's utterly ridiculous that the Midwest and Plains States basically hold our government hostage. I mean, MTG seems like a decent guy, but I don't think he's worth 15 of me, like his Senate vote is. Health care reform right now is being held hostage by senators from Maine, New Mexico, North Dakota (or is it South? No, wait, I don't care. One of them has Mount Rushmore) and Montana. Collectively, they have less than 5% of the US population. It's people that vote, not land, AAFitz. If we're going to start disenfranchising people, shouldn't we disenfranchise people at the federal level who benefit disordinately from local governments (rural areas get maaad money, relative to population)

I don't know about that, considering that half of my body is made of gold? I'd say that would raise my worth up a bit.

Anyways, can't believe I missed a topic where my home state is actually mentioned.

Whats the issue here? Everyone knows Wyomng is 6x better than NY.

Completely agreed.

To illustrate on some points (too lazy to pick and quote):
Republic=Representative Democracy
Why electoral college?
In short, look at AAFitz's post, which more or less covers it.
Also, like Nobunaga said;
In one countervailing analysis, the Banzhaf Power Index (BPI) model based on probability theory was used to test the hypothesis that citizens of small states accrue more election power. It was found that in 1990, individual voters in California, the largest state, had 3.3 times more individual power to choose a President than voters of Montana, the largest of the minimum 3 elector states.[51] Banzhaf's method has been criticized for treating votes like coin-flips, and more empirically-based models of voting yield results which seem to favor larger states less. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electoral_ ... ted_States)
And how many times have I told you people that the NWO is based in Wyoming? HUH!?

[BigBallinStalin]

No, even blacks can better their situations, there is more help for college and high school scholarships out there availible for minorities than whites.

So yeah this is pretty much retarded. The single largest factor in determining a person's ability to become successful is socio-economic place. Even disregarding racism (like a few more scholarships compensate for that...) it is far harder for a poor person in the US to achieve a relatively high position than it is for a rich person. That's a well documented fact.

To say "Everybody in teh USA has the chance to make something of himself" is an incredibly stupid statement that shows some pretty big ignorance.

Gotta disagree with you there, buddy. In the usa you have a better chance and having a better life. Sure, you won't become a Rockefeller or any other rich family, but you can live in comfort, i.e own a house or land. Another thing is that racism is socio-economics. There hand in hand. Read up on some social problems that America has to deal with and you'll find that its the same thing

No that's bollocks. The rates of people moving from one social-economic scale to another are minimal in the US, and most of it is downwards. Yes some people do go from rags to riches, but that is pretty much a statistical fluke. They can't make your point for you because such things happen in every single society. It's like stating that any peasant in medieval Europe could move up to nobility by pointing at a ridiculously small number of them getting that honour, and not only that but those instances are greatly exaggerated just like in the US.

Young poor people are discouraged at every turn to make a better life. In order to make true the claim that "everybody has a big chance of getting better" you'll have to claim that circumstances do not affect someone's life in a very heavy part. Even ignoring the racism that is still very prevalent, there is so little aid and concern for those lesser off that it's ridiculous to suggest they got much of a chance.

And racism is not the same thing as socio-economics. Of course they're heavily intertwined but anyone can see why and it doesn't make them the same. Real racism still exists and it is helped and left to grow by the people who claim the worst of it is over.

Bullshit! If you work hard and do the right thing in America, you CAN NOT BE STOPPED!

This is either getting heated or someone's just joking around to get more negative feedback. For a race-related issue on this topic, please see my post here http://www.conquerclub.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=8&t=97540&start=90, Other than that, what else is there?

Oh right, whether or note someone can enrich their lives by one's own efforts. Sure, they can! But there's many internal and external factors at work that make that task easier for some and more difficult for others. If I live in a big city, typically I'll have access to more things which I can use to improve my standard of living (generally speaking); whereas, a town of 10,000 really is going to make some things more difficult, some times. Also, race and one's financial standing are large influences in determining how successful and how difficult it will be to undergo such a task. Hard work and doing the right thing alone sometimes just doesn't cut it.

Let's say I'm some local druglord/gang leader, and I want a certain kid to continue working for me, but he doesn't want to--he wants to do the right thing. So, I ordered him killed to set an example (a common thing in New Orleans, and perhaps many "drug-infested" cities), so sometimes it's difficult to do the right thing, because in some cases you'll get killed or receive an intense amount of social exclusion, which is severely crippling for kids at young ages.

But look, there's so many factors to introduce here, so if you're really interested in this issue, then might I suggest reading the appropriate book on this topic by John Hope Franklin. There are many authors as well, but my headache really limits my memory right now.

[Nobunaga]

To deny that statment shows arrogance, a good friend of mine grew up in Peoria, Illinois. His mom is a drug addict and his dad is an achololic so there was really no income to live off of, his parents when I met him in my Junior Year of highschool were both around 70 (both dead now). His oldest sister is around 40 years older than him so he was really a accident child. He didnt want to be in the same situation as his parents so he studied hard in school (keep in mind those are crap schools) and got decent scholarship to a two-year college and transfered to a 4 year school after that, he is now attending med school in Texas.

Dont call me arrogant by sayin everyone has a chance, because its true everyone does. Somepeople just dont have the will power to go through with it.

I've talked to numerous homeless in new orleans ranging from early 20s to late 70s, and what I've noticed is that when people lose hope, that's it. It's all over. So that's a big influence, but look my friend citing one example by using your good friend really isn't a strong claim. More instances of this happening being compared to contrary instances is more meaningful even though it's a touching story.

Everyone in the U.S. does have a chance. Some situations for some people may be harder than others, but there is nothing saying that they can't do whatever they want to. They simply might have to work harder for it. Not everyone is born equal, but they all have the same chance to make something of themselves. If they work hard enough at it, they will accomplish what they want. the problem is that the majority of the America is fat, lazy, ignorant, and far more interested in the lives of others than their own.

Bull. There are plenty of people that do almost nothing but work and still struggle to just provide for their families. What, outside of nostalgia and folklore, shows that climbing the social ladder in America is possible?

... I work with a guy from India. He came to the states about fifteen years ago after his parents, grandparents and other close relatives sold much of their own stuff in India to pay for his trip.

... This guy told me the only time he wasn't studying was when he was working. I guess he slept somewhere in between.

... He is now head of Engineering at the US branch of a Japanese owned international capital equipment manufacturing company. I don't know what his salary is of course, but he's is quite well off.

... That could've been me, it could've been you, or anybody willing to work as hard as he did during those years.

... I firmly believe that the degree to which one will make the necessary sacrifices and put forth effort will be determined largely by the family in which one is brought up. That example about gang bangers in New Orleans ... Does anybody here think the parents and relatives of those kids were pushing for them to go to college since gradeschool?

... No money for college? There are many loans available, as well as the GI Bill.

...

[AAFitz]

He obviously would care about the (24%, I think???) rural population, its not like a vote from a rural district would count less than an urban one, It's about the elimination of groups, grouping is almost always a bad thing. I'm not sure I agree with your reasoning or maybe I don't understand it, can you clarify?

PS. The US is not a democracy, we're what you would call a Republic.

Its not that he would care less about the individual rural vote, but that there were much less rural votes to go around, so focusing on giving only the large populated areas what they want would be the focus. Its simply a matter of numbers. Focus on gaining a maximum percentage of the big population states, and obviously you cant completely ignore the rural states, but you sure arent going to give them the same kind of attention, so they will definitely not be fairly represented. They will have nearly no real power to ask for any kind of consideration in law/policy making, because those in the big populated states will necessarily be more catered to, and more likely to get their way. Realistically, they still are, but with the college, at least the rural states have a chance of getting consideration, if not influence.

And obviously the US is not a pure democracy, it is democratic, and it is for the same exact reasons. We elect officials to make the laws, and do not vote on them individually, because the majority would always trump the minority, and it simply would mean that some areas and towns would never have a meaningful vote, because they would only be represented by a tiny fraction of votes. They instead elect a representative, that gives them a more relatively equal voice. Otherwise, the smallest populations would always be trumped by the larger ones, and they of course knew this at the time the constitution was written, and simply never would have ratified it, if this inequity was not addressed.

[BigBallinStalin]

.......

... I firmly believe that the degree to which one will make the necessary sacrifices and put forth effort will be determined largely by the family in which one is brought up. That example about gang bangers in New Orleans ... Does anybody here think the parents and relatives of those kids were pushing for them to go to college since gradeschool?

... No money for college? There are many loans available, as well as the GI Bill.

...

Right you are you Nobunaga, parents or the the lack thereof is another significant effect on one's chances in achieving success in this control, but they are the only influence. Among crime in poor neighborhhoods and parents, there's many other negative factors that affect one's chances of success.

No money for college? There's plenty of loans with good payback rates. You're right, but this is one of so many factors.

Bottomline, you can and you can't or you may not or may have good chances at making well in this country. It just depends on so many factors, that no one can really answer such a question, since there's a large lack of overwhelming evidence to be found here as well as the immense amount of difficulty in producing such an answer.

Again, a story of someone making it big is insufficient evidence, but it does show us that it CAN be done. But how likely? Haha, yeahh....

".. I work with a guy from India. He came to the states about fifteen years ago after his parents, grandparents and other close relatives sold much of their own stuff in India to pay for his trip.

... This guy told me the only time he wasn't studying was when he was working. I guess he slept somewhere in between.

... He is now head of Engineering at the US branch of a Japanese owned international capital equipment manufacturing company. I don't know what his salary is of course, but he's is quite well off.

... That could've been me, it could've been you, or anybody willing to work as hard as he did during those years.
"

I'd say that given the many negative influences that one cannot help prevent from decreasing one's chances of success, I'd still say that most of the chances come from the individual himself. However, where if the environment effects that individual so greatly, then can the person be held accountable alone? No. So once again, we go back in circles. The guy from India had not only his self-determination, but the immense support of his family and friends in India, and hopefully the immense support of friends in the US. It's a huge endeavor of his, and I'm glad he made it, but his whole family and friends, them selling everything (did they in fact sell everything? Everyone sold their homes as well?), their support, and his work only are not the only factors that determined his success. Sometimes, people work their asses off in that kind of field and do not get a justifiable pay. Sometimes, people's chances of success are limited due to their intellectual capabilities and/or former education. You're talking about a student going to an Engineering school in the US and then making it big, while ignoring fundamental factors like his intellectual capability. However, will-power, or self-determination is a strong factor in succeeding, but depending on certain qualities, one's chances can still be negatively reflected regardless of how hard they work. And after working for so hard and hardly seeing any benefit, change, or success, then one can easily become hopeless. Full circle. Many factors affect many factors which affect many factors.

No more individual stories; they're insufficient.

[BigBallinStalin]

[please delete repost] KTHX!

[PLAYER57832]

To deny that statment shows arrogance, a good friend of mine grew up in Peoria, Illinois. His mom is a drug addict and his dad is an achololic so there was really no income to live off of, his parents when I met him in my Junior Year of highschool were both around 70 (both dead now). His oldest sister is around 40 years older than him so he was really a accident child. He didnt want to be in the same situation as his parents so he studied hard in school (keep in mind those are crap schools) and got decent scholarship to a two-year college and transfered to a 4 year school after that, he is now attending med school in Texas.

Dont call me arrogant by sayin everyone has a chance, because its true everyone does. Somepeople just dont have the will power to go through with it.

I've talked to numerous homeless in new orleans ranging from early 20s to late 70s, and what I've noticed is that when people lose hope, that's it. It's all over. So that's a big influence, but look my friend citing one example by using your good friend really isn't a strong claim. More instances of this happening being compared to contrary instances is more meaningful even though it's a touching story.

Everyone in the U.S. does have a chance. Some situations for some people may be harder than others, but there is nothing saying that they can't do whatever they want to. They simply might have to work harder for it. Not everyone is born equal, but they all have the same chance to make something of themselves. If they work hard enough at it, they will accomplish what they want. the problem is that the majority of the America is fat, lazy, ignorant, and far more interested in the lives of others than their own.

Bull. There are plenty of people that do almost nothing but work and still struggle to just provide for their families. What, outside of nostalgia and folklore, shows that climbing the social ladder in America is possible?

It is possible, I doubt many dispute that. It is possible for a poor kid from the slums to become a famous basketball player or a poor kid from the farms of Texas or California to become a wealth and famous sports star. Yet, the idea that "anyone" can be a "pro"... is pretty laughable.
Even if you have skill, you have to be fortunate enough to get the right coaching, have time to play, etc. Since sports are often no longer free, even the chance is being taken away from many.

The problem is that in America, there are far, far, far too many people who DO work hard, who DO live honest lives, DO make all the "right" decisions (go to college, etc.) and who STILL are either not making it or only just making it by the skin of their teeth. My family is an example.

Meanwhile, the concentration of wealth among the already rich is increasing. The middle class in America is dissappearing. THAT is the problem!

[BigBallinStalin]

Meanwhile, the concentration of wealth among the already rich is increasing. The middle class in America is dissappearing. THAT is the problem!

The middle class in America is dissappearing.

I hear this a lot, and I doubt it's validity since the media sound-spinners and the politicians have yet to really show me any proof, and I have yet to do some hardcore, intensive research on it . Does anyone know of any credible studies done on this? Or is this another red herring, or some other form of rubbish? (Please save me time ).

Granted it may be true for a small percentage of the middle class, I highly doubt the United States would experience a drastic change in the socio-economic disparity rate* due to it's general stability--economic crisis included. Normally, you'd see huge changes in socio-economic disparity rates in countries that have recently suffered or are suffering from civil wars, massive inflation, and other extreme events. Also, I've heard of this middle class shrinkage a couple years before the economic crisis was a major issue if I recall correctly...


*(or the disparity rate between the financial classes, I can't recall that specific word or words at the moment)

Meanwhile, the concentration of wealth among the already rich is increasing.

Really?!? By how much, and if YES then we must ACT VIOLENTLY, overthrow the rich, "redistribute" the wealth (to my Maltese bank account), and restore order to such terrible side effects of capitalism. Yes, sir! I suggest a drastic change! American communism with Chinese characteristics is what's in need of order here, ladies and gentlemen.

What nonsense. What can you constructively provide about this other than simply stating, "the concentration of wealth among the already rich is increasing?"

[Snorri1234]

Meanwhile, the concentration of wealth among the already rich is increasing. The middle class in America is dissappearing. THAT is the problem!

The middle class in America is dissappearing.

I hear this a lot, and I doubt it's validity since the media sound-spinners and the politicians have yet to really show me any proof, and I have yet to do some hardcore, intensive research on it . Does anyone know of any credible studies done on this? Or is this another red herring, or some other form of rubbish? (Please save me time ).

Granted it may be true for a small percentage of the middle class, I highly doubt the United States would experience a drastic change in the socio-economic disparity rate* due to it's general stability--economic crisis included. Normally, you'd see huge changes in socio-economic disparity rates in countries that have recently suffered or are suffering from civil wars, massive inflation, and other extreme events. Also, I've heard of this middle class shrinkage a couple years before the economic crisis was a major issue if I recall correctly...


*(or the disparity rate between the financial classes, I can't recall that specific word or words at the moment)

Meanwhile, the concentration of wealth among the already rich is increasing.

Really?!? By how much, and if YES then we must ACT VIOLENTLY, overthrow the rich, "redistribute" the wealth (to my Maltese bank account), and restore order to such terrible side effects of capitalism. Yes, sir! I suggest a drastic change! American communism with Chinese characteristics is what's in need of order here, ladies and gentlemen.

What nonsense. What can you constructively provide about this other than simply stating, "the concentration of wealth among the already rich is increasing?"

I think it's a bit of a ridiculous statement because of the words that are used. The rich keep getting richer, that's true and expected for a country where things like "death-tax" and putting income-tax rates at the pre-bush level are considered VERY VERY BAD!!!! And it's probably also true that the middle-class isn't growing in wealth as much as they used to or may in fact even be getting poorer.

It's just that the combination and the obvious implications the person stating this is making are a bit alarmist.

[thegreekdog]

The reason why they created it was because the founding fathers thought the masses were idiots and wouldn't be able to understand the issues at hand and would vote for the wrong person (to give them created at that time, news traveled slowly and most of the public was illiterate). They also feared that radical groups may get a foothold on power and be voted in to the presidency by popular vote (reason why Senators were originally voted in by state legislatures).

Thankfully, in the modern era, people aren't "idiots" and would "be able to understand the issues at hand" and don't "vote for the wrong person." Additionally, it's fairly uncommon now for "radical groups" get a foothold on power. Yep...

[snrubenahs]

If you want to talk about "constitutional rights" you will find that the laws governing elections are entirely constitutional. This country is not nor should it ever be a democracy. It is a REPRESENTATIVE democracy. There have been pure democracies before, but the longest lasting one was in Athens. It collapsed into civil war after 100 years. "Pure" democracy cannot sustain itself. Even the founding fathers feared a pure democracy. Every time there has ever been a pure democracy the people destroy themselves over minor issues.

For example, a pure democracy in America would not have two parties. It would have twenty. In order to prevent civil war between the more radical groups (black panther party/aryan brotherhood) the controlling party would have to proclaim a state of martial law...ending pure democracy. Furthermore, a pure democracy leaves no room for a very strong executive. All military decisions would be either authorized or made directly by the legislature. In America, we have a long history of having corrupt members in the legislature. I am not saying that the current system is wonderful or perfect, but it is in place to prevent elections and lawmaking from becoming like American Idol: vote wars.