patrick.net

freak80 says

Fair enough, but I thought you were against government involvement in personal relationships.

The correct solution is for marriage not to be a secular institution. However, two wrongs don't make a right. And if we are going to keep committing the wrong of having civil marriage (and whose laws discriminate against the single) then we should not compound that wrong with the wrong of discrimination against homosexuals.

If marriage is to continue as a civil institution, it must abide by the 14th Amendment, and all must be equal under marriage laws.

This seems to me to be a very consistent position.

zzyzzx says

Unrealistic, since no private company still has a pension, and hasn't for years, probably decades.

BZZtt. I have a relative who works at a pension management group for private sector workers, and last I heard from her things were going fine. Even my dentists office has a pension for it's people.

According to Fortune, about 45 of the top 100 companies offer pensions or hybrid defined benefits plans.

http://amzn.com/B00AK3WCZ8

FortWayne says

If government is too big it should be shut down. I bet even you would be up for shutting down NSA.

I would shut down over 50% of the government. However, I would wisely pick the parts to shut down rather than just shutting everything down.

Yes, I would defund and disband the NSA and the TSA. I'd cut warfare funding by 95%. Then I'd address health care costs by using a single payer system and nationalized insurance. I'd streamline all medical administration.

Then I'd address Social Security making each generation pay for itself rather than having future generations pay for the current one. This would make Social Security indefinitely sustainable.

Then I'd replace most welfare with useful public works projects leaving welfare for only the truly disabled or incapable of work. There's more than enough useful public works to be done. Hell, I'd make sure that public works employment paid a living wage, so McDonald's wouldn't be able to find people willing to work for $7/hour when they could make $15/hour building infrastructure, laying down fiber, making maglift highways, etc.

But the real story isn't that government is too big; it's that it's too big in some areas (war, intrusion into private affairs, etc.) and too small in other areas (white collar crime prosecution, environmental protection, infrastructure maintenance, etc.).

egads101 says

marcus says

Just in case you weren't clear on who you're talking to, well,..now you know.

Let me guess Fort Wayne. As a student you were always one of the brightest. You got perfect scores on your SATs and went to either MIT, Cal Tech, Stanford or Harvard. And since then, well the rest is history.

So it's no wonder that when you bring your high powered thought processes and your resulting opinions to this forum, that most of us can't begin to comprehend where you're coming from.

All those words so carefully chosen, and the well planned sarcasms.

Or, you could just call him a dumbfuck!

True.

My intent was to get him remembering that he isn't the shiniest tool in the box, and that maybe on occasion he could learn from those smarter than he when it comes to thinking through social issues.

But,..

1) That's not the way a dimbulb's ego works

2) And, truth is, with respect to learning from others, that's what he is doing when he listens to talk radio, Rush Limbaugh, Glen Beck, Sean Hannity types.

FortWayne says

marcus says

Let me guess Fort Wayne. As a student you were always one of the brightest. You got perfect scores on your SATs and went to either MIT, Cal Tech, Stanford or Harvard. And since then, well the rest is history.

"Those who can, do. Those who can't, teach".

Yeah Mr big shot teacher, "leave them kids alone".

You're not a kid.

But it is interesting to finally understand why you bash teachers so much. It's their fault that you did so poorly in school. Also the fault of public education in general.

You aren't as useless as school made you feel. In fact you have opinions and everything (that you get from people ever so slightly less retarded than you, on talk radio and Fox).

FortWayne says

If government is too big it should be shut down. I bet even you would be up
for shutting down NSA.

The irony. Look what it has led to. A place for you to post your f-ed up thoughts and opinions.

Dan8267 says

And if we are going to keep committing the wrong of having civil marriage (and whose laws discriminate against the single)

Wait, are you saying that civil marriage discriminates against the single? Maybe I misunderstand you.

Dan8267 says

If marriage is to continue as a civil institution, it must abide by the 14th Amendment, and all must be equal under marriage laws.

All must be equal under marriage laws...does that include the single? What would "single marriage" look like? ;-)

If any kind of marriage discriminates against single people, why not just get rid of marriage entirely? Why should civil government be involved in relationships (or lack thereof) at all? What's the benefit?

freak80 says

Wait, are you saying that civil marriage discriminates against the single? Maybe I misunderstand you.

I'm saying that the tax code in the United States at both the federal and state level discriminates against single people. As does Social Security. Basically, single people (and single men in the case of SS) get fleeced.

freak80 says

All must be equal under marriage laws...does that include the single? What would "single marriage" look like? ;-)

If any kind of marriage discriminates against single people, why not just get rid of marriage entirely? Why should civil government be involved in relationships (or lack thereof) at all? What's the benefit?

The tax code should not discriminate against single people, i.e. tax singles more, as doing so violates the 14th Amendment. However, most people in Congress are married, so they like discriminating against singles. When most people in Congress are single, that law will change.

As for other rights conferred by marriage, these rights really ought to be marriage agnostic. For example, right now the benefits of a veteran are conferred to his widow. But what if the veteran is single and has a sister who is financially dependent on him? Why shouldn't his survivor benefits confer to his sister? A dependent is a dependent regardless of the personal relationship to the deceased.

Nonetheless, marriage equality under law is a step towards more universal equality under law and as such is a step that should be taken.

Dan8267 says

I'm saying that the tax code in the United States at both the federal and state level discriminates against single people. As does Social Security. Basically, single people (and single men in the case of SS) get fleeced.

As a single guy myself, I tend to agree. Then again, I'm probably a little biased.

Is that what the definition of marriage ultimately boils down to? The differential treatment of individuals vis a vis the tax code, SS benefits, and other legal benefits?

If it's all about equal treatment/protection under the law, then any kind of differential treatment of individuals based on relationship status is inhrently discriminatory. Am I right? So doesn't that make any kind of marriage discriminatory (since single people don't get the same treatment)?

FortWayne says

Quigley says

Fine, can we have a hetero pride parade too? Or would that be wrong?

Pride goeth before a fall.

I never really understood why all those deviants in this country are so proud of themselves for being the way they are. Whats there to take pride in exactly?

Diversity and freedom

The two things that made this country so great in the first place

Dan8267 says

Nonetheless, marriage equality under law is a step towards more universal equality under law and as such is a step that should be taken.

But if marriage, by definition, discriminates agaisnt single people, wouldn't *getting rid of civil marriage altogether* be a *much bigger step* towards more universal equality under law?

What's the point of marriage in modern society anyway? Is it just a cash-cow for divorce lawyers? Or just a way for one partner to legally seize the assets of the other one?

Who knows where the GOP will be in ten years. The demtards better hope that they are still somewhat viable, or else who will they have to blame for all their failures?

Both POS parties desire an anti-american end game. A ginormous and ever powerful, State. Let's all hope that another party gains traction to fight back against the Statists.

freak80 says

If it's all about equal treatment/protection under the law, then any kind of differential treatment of individuals based on relationship status is inhrently discriminatory. Am I right?

I would agree. The proper way in modern times for the state to handle rights based on relationships is by deferring to the individual. Each individual should have the power to confer rights (benefactor, guardian, etc.) to others as that individual sees fit.

Furthermore, the state should not distinguish between one type of dependent and another. Whether the person you take care of is your spouse or some bum you found on the street should be irrelevant to the state. If you are paying the majority of that person's living expenses, then that person is your dependent.

The state should simplify its laws and decrease its attempts to social engineer changes since such engineering attempts rely on judgment calls that are not the right of the state to make. If the state followed this philosophy, it would not even need to be concerned with the definition of marriage or any other social issue. The state should be culture agnostic. A properly run state should be able to work independent of the culture or cultures of the citizens of that state.

freak80 says

So doesn't that make any kind of marriage discriminatory (since single people don't get the same treatment)?

Yes, the conferment of any rights on privileges on marriage does inherently discriminate against the single because they do not possess such rights or privileges. And this has practical implications in the age in which many people remain single, often cohabiting.

However, as long as marriage does exist as a secular institution, it is better that all marriages are equal and marriage is available to all people than to limit marriage based on arbitrary criteria like gender and race.

Ideally, marriage should be a social and religious institution rather than a civil one. Laws involving marriage should be rewritten to apply to people and their legal relationships in general, including parental rights, which is significant since many parents are not married to each other nowadays.

Removing marriage from all legislation and rewriting that legislation to handle all modern relationships would vastly improve the quality of life for many people. Of course, it is a monumental legal task because there are so many laws involving marriage, but that's because we've been doing it the wrong way for so long.

Civil marriage made sense under the Feudal system. It does not make sense in the 21st century. That's not to say that social and religious marriage doesn't make sense, just that the state should not be involved in it.

freak80 says

But if marriage, by definition, discriminates agaisnt single people, wouldn't *getting rid of civil marriage altogether* be a *much bigger step* towards more universal equality under law?

What's the point of marriage in modern society anyway? Is it just a cash-cow for divorce lawyers? Or just a way for one partner to legally seize the assets of the other one?

I think I answer those questions in the paragraph above (Feudal system).

But to reiterate, it would be ideal to get rid of marriage law and replace it with marriage-agnostic law that accomplishes the same goals by empowering the individual to make the decision of who gets what benefits and powers.

Let's use a concrete example. This example could be applied to any right, privilege, or power conferred by marriage, but let's get specific to illustrate clearly what I'm proposing.

In the status quo, a veteran's widow gets a set of benefits called veteran survivor benefits or veteran widow benefits. But why should the state limit or even care that these benefits are being used by a spouse? Let's say a veteran, Bob, makes a deliberate decision to stay single so he can take care of his autistic sister, Jen. Bob later dies of a heart attack. Why should the state deny Jen the survivor benefits that Bob earned through his service?

As far as the state is concerned, it is simply providing a monetary benefit to Bob's estate. Whether that benefit is used by a spouse, a sister, a parent, a child, a cousin, a friend, or some random guy Bob picked up on the street and started caring for is utterly irrelevant to the state. Jen should not be penalized because she is Bob's sister instead of his wife. It certainly isn't Bob's wish. Should Bob be forced to marry his sister in order to guarantee that his survivor benefits go to her?

The obvious solution is that Bob should unilaterally decide who should get his survivor benefits and who those benefits should be split. In other words, his benefits should not be tied to marriage, but rather Bob's will. The same goes for all other privileges and rights of marriage.

Those who choose to marry and use their rights the way the status quo works lose nothing by letting others have the flexibility of making alternative decisions. This is why marriage is not necessary or productive as a civil institution. I would go so far as to even submit that civil marriage is counter-productive to social and religious marriage because civil marriage created the family court system that has been destroying marriage and strongly encouraging men not to get married. Removing civil marriage may indeed be the key to saving social and religious marriage.

Dan, that's a very well thought out post. Thank you. +1.

I think you and I are mostly in agreement on the marriage issue.

Nonetheless, being an engineer I'm going to over-analyze your post and do some nitpicking:

Dan8267 says

The state should simplify its laws and decrease its attempts to social engineer changes since such engineering attempts rely on judgment calls that are not the right of the state to make. If the state followed this philosophy, it would not even need to be concerned with the definition of marriage or any other social issue. The state should be culture agnostic. A properly run state should be able to work independent of the culture or cultures of the citizens of that state.

That sounds nice in theory. But in actual practice, culture strongly affects beliefs about what is "right and wrong" and "moral and immoral." And many of those ideas get written into law, no?

For example, the statement "it is wrong to discriminate based on skin color" is a moral statement. It's a judgement call. (It's a judgement call I personally agree with.) During the Civil Rights era, the state made the same judgement call. The state *did* socially engineer changes to the culture of the southern U.S. I'd personally say it was a good thing. But it *is* an example of the state making a judgement call and socially engineering a change. Yes, I realize there was a "grass roots" movement for change as well, independent of the state.

Dan8267 says

Ideally, marriage should be a social and religious institution rather than a civil one.

Dan8267 says

That's not to say that social and religious marriage doesn't make sense, just that the state should not be involved in it.

Dan8267 says

I would go so far as to even submit that civil marriage is counter-productive to social and religious marriage because civil marriage created the family court system that has been destroying marriage and strongly encouraging men not to get married. Removing civil marriage may indeed be the key to saving social and religious marriage.

Agree. Especially on the last point.

But what if a religious group defines their version of "religious marriage" as "one man and one woman" exclusively? Are you willing to accept that? Or should the state get involved because said group is discriminating against homosexuality and/or polygamy?

Dan8267 says

In any case, equality under law including the special case of marriage is far
from a "frilly social issue". It affects taxation. Are you saying that taxation
is a "frilly social issue"?

Tax issue? Ha! Like all those married gays paying taxes is going to help solve our entitlement Ponzi schemes?

Gays are a tiny minority of our society (@ 2-3%). Gays who actually want to get married and live monagamous lives are even a smaller minority.

So yes, this is a very frilly social wedge issue that virtually every Democrat including Obama was on the other side of like 5 minutes ago.

I can't blame Liberals for using gay marriage as a hammer to divert from the absolute ruin of the Blue State model......because it clearly works to distract the young and stupid.

Just don't pretend you are taking on or fighting for the most important issues facing our country.

socal2 says

Blue State model.

Yeah- the blue state model. Seeing as how California has the largest economy in the US, bigger than all 49 other states combined, with NY, and MA not far behind tells me that the "Blue" states know something about doing things right. Like making TONS of money.

How are most of those red states doing? Yeah.... thought so.

edvard2 says

How are most of those red states doing? Yeah.... thought so.

The red states are the true welfare queens.

edvard2 says

eah- the blue state model. Seeing as how California has the largest economy in the US, bigger than all 49 other states combined, with NY, and MA not far behind tells me that the "Blue" states know something about doing things right. Like making TONS of money.

How are most of those red states doing? Yeah.... thought so.

.. The Booming business/industries created in California were done by far more Conservative folks during a more Business friendly Pro Industry decades.

California today could not repeat the same boom years because of Anti-Business policies created by the Left.

its not all that surprising how the Lefties want to take credit for the Industry Booms of the 70s 80s and 90s while they have been against all the Corporations/Industries since the 1960s ....

anyway.. talk to former Sun Micro CEO / Co founder about Pro Business California today.

http://www.pressheretv.com/ep-137-advice-for-zuckerberg/

freak80 says

edvard2 says

How are most of those red states doing? Yeah.... thought so.

The red states are the true welfare queens.

where former Californians have moved to during retirement years.

i guess they have no stomach for your Liberal Utopian Society.

The Great California Exodus

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702304444604577340531861056966.html

thomaswong.1986 says

.. The Booming business/industries created in California were done by far more Conservative folks during a more Business friendly Pro Industry decades.

California today could not repeat the same boom years because of Anti-Business policies created by the Left.

That has to be the biggest load of crap I've read in awhile. I think you need to crack open a few history books as well as actually look who founded today's most successful tech companies in the world.

thomaswong.1986 says

where former Californians have moved to during retirement years.

i guess they have no stomach for your Liberal Utopian Society.

The Great California Exodus

Yes- that's fantastic for the states they are moving to who now get to take care of lots and lots of retirees. I'm not sure if your comment was supposed to make a point. If it did, I'm not sure.... hmmm. leseee... lots of retirees moving to other states... how exactly does that translate to jobs in research, tech, science, manufacturing, and education? That's right... they DON'T.

But hey- if others want to move to Arkansas, well that's totally fine with me. There are literally millions eagerly waiting to fill their places anyway and that will also help free up more housing.

edvard2 says

That has to be the biggest load of crap I've read in awhile. I think you need to crack open a few history books as well as actually look who founded today's most successful tech companies in the world.

History books and real life.. i been working in SV tech for 3 decades. Where were you at ?

Where were all these pin headed liberals during the tech boom of the 70s 80s and 90s ?

anyway.. talk to former Sun Micro CEO / Co founder about Pro Business California today.

http://www.pressheretv.com/ep-137-advice-for-zuckerberg/

I'd say they were fiscally conservative and socially somewhat liberal. By todays standards ""conservative" since anybody who wants to reign in on spending and uphold personal responsibility is labeled a "right-winger" these days.

edvard2 says

Yes- that's fantastic for the states they are moving to who now get to take care of lots and lots of retirees. I'm not sure if your comment was supposed to make a point. If it did, I'm not sure.... hmmm. leseee... lots of retirees moving to other states... how exactly does that translate to jobs in research, tech, science, manufacturing, and education? That's right... they DON'T.

the vast majority of SV company jobs are no longer in CA.. they too have been shipped out
to RED states as well.. all due to pro business environment. they cover all the R&D Manufacturing and G/A jobs we once had in Santa Clara..

my former employer AMD is no longer a CA based company.. pretty much all it is in Austin, Tx
with so much savings created from Tx.. Tx based companies have come to SV to acquire all the companies they need.. Dell and Texas Instruments have been acquiring companies left and right in the valley.

thomaswong.1986 says

History books and real life.. i been working in SV tech for 3 decades. Where were you at ?

Where were all these pin headed liberals during the tech boom of the 70s 80s and 90s ?

Well, not sure what business activity that happened 30-40 years ago has to do with the current status of California and its current line of business. The Internet didn't even exist except in strictly research and government transaction form. Seeing as how a huge number of internet-based companies of today have zilch to do with that era. In tech, 5 years ago is ancient history. The type of product, research, trend, and general direction changes very quickly in tech and what happened 30-40 years ago isn't relevant.

What you are saying would be like someone from Detroit coming in and saying: " Back in the 50's, there were thousands of manufacturing plants and lots of cars being made there." That was then. This is now. Trying to make this lame argument that thanks to conservatives, liberals can thrive is pointless because it bears no real connection to the business environment of today.thomaswong.1986 says

the vast majority of SV company jobs are no longer in CA.. they too have been shipped out

to RED states as well.. all due to pro business environment. they cover all the R&D Manufacturing and G/A jobs we once had in Santa Clara..

Wrong. If we're talking about manufacturing, well sure. That business flew the coop a long time ago to first lower cost states, now other countries. And let me tell you as someone who actually made a rather serious multi-year attempt to relocate to one of those supposedly alternative "tech" cities like Austin and Raleigh Duraham.. well let me just say that yeah, there are tech jobs, but a very, very far cry from the number available here in the Bay Area. On top of that, the competition for those jobs is extreme ( due to their being less of them) and the type of work is from what I experienced at lower levels and lower levels of pay. I was looking at 50% cuts on average to my salary.

But even so- what's ironic about what you're saying here is that guess where the tech jobs that happen to leave the Bay Area go? They go to LIBERAL areas! Yes- Austin, Raleigh, Boulder CO, and so on are all in some cases liberal bastions in a sea of red state surrounding them. So even if you were miraculously right about all tech jobs being gone from SV, they aren't moving to red areas anyway.

In closing, if you are sooooo unhappy here.... then why not move to a red state yourself? I'm from a red state originally and I'm sure you'd just looooove it there. There's plenty of room and heck- it sure is cheap. Just get used to hot, humid weather, greasy, fattening food, and you'd also probably want to "like" pop country.

edvard2 says

But hey- if others want to move to Arkansas, well that's totally fine with me. There are literally millions eagerly waiting to fill their places anyway and that will also help free up more housing.

Yes... we can see similar results from Detroit and many east Coast towns.. proud testimony
of the lefts pro industry position... if there is any...

Lefties are like parasites and locusts ready to strip the land bare of all industrial success.

thomaswong.1986 says

Lefties are like parasites and locusts ready to strip the land bare of all industrial success.

Like I said before- the states that make the vast majority of the money in this country also happen to be blue states. Thus your comment above is moot and void.

edvard2 says

Well, not sure what business activity that happened 30-40 years ago has to do with the current status of California and its current line of business. The Internet didn't even exist except in strictly research and government transaction form. Seeing as how a huge number of internet-based companies of today have zilch to do with that era. In tech, 5 years ago is ancient history. The type of product, research, trend, and general direction changes very quickly in tech and what happened 30-40 years ago isn't relevant.

What is the Internet but all the success created over the past 50 years.. You can also call it the Telecommunications Boom.. And if you aint got Semicondutors, Storage Devices, and Software..which was created decades past.. there isnt much of a point to discuss Tech
Telecommunications or Internet..

You cant even make a Semi / Disk drive plant in SV anymore.. the Govt regulations will kill you.

edvard2 says

What you are saying would be like someone from Detroit coming in and saying: " Back in the 50's, there were thousands of manufacturing plants and lots of cars being made there." That was then. This is now. Trying to make this lame argument that thanks to conservatives, liberals can thrive is pointless because it bears no real connection to the business environment of today

My exact point.. Detroits success was not from Liberals doing.. but its demise to to Liberal anti-business policies..

thomaswong.1986 says

What is the Internet but all the success created over the past 50 years

Which built on the successes 50 years prior to that.. all the way back to the invention of the wheel. What's your point?

thomaswong.1986 says

What is the Internet but all the success created over the past 50 years.. You can also call it the Telecommunications Boom.. And if you aint got Semicondutors, Storage Devices, and Software..which was created decades past.. there isnt much of a point to discuss Tech

Telecommunications or Internet..

You cant even make a Semi / Disk drive plant in SV anymore.. the Govt regulations will kill you.

What does that have to do with anything? Explain. For example, if you flip open the hood of any new car or truck made today, regardless of manufacture, that vehicle will have parts in it made in the US, China, Japan, Mexico, Korea, Germany, and who knows where else. Just because those parts are not ALL domestically produced anymore doesn't mean the companies that make the cars are going out of business.

Like I said- economics is fluid. With that fluid characterization, business, technology, supply chains, management, and yes- even political ideology that might have once permeated a particular industry changes an what happened decades ago has nothing to do with today's business performance. So if you want to continue arguing, feel free, but the assessment that California has today's success thanks to these so-called conservatives of the past is a non-argument. Period.

tatupu70 says

Which built on the successes 50 years prior to that.. all the way back to the invention of the wheel. What's your point?

So you basically just suddenly ruined your previous point. If that be the case then you are now actually agreeing that political leanings has nothing to do with current business. Good. Now we can move on to more meaningful debate.

edvard2 says

In closing, if you are sooooo unhappy here.... then why not move to a red state yourself? I'm from a red state originally and I'm sure you'd just looooove it there. There's plenty of room and heck- it sure is cheap. Just get used to hot, humid weather, greasy, fattening food, and you'd also probably want to "like" pop country.

What do you think Silicon Valley/ Santa Clara County was like back in the day which created the success story ? You think we were a bunch of Wine sipping Mozart listing Volvo driving fuck heads...

Christ.. hell no.. gun shoting, whiskey drinking rednecks.. and how many worked in Tech industry back in the 70-80s.. ALOT... why do you think we created Beer Bash Fridays...

From BBQ joints along El Camino to the Saddle Rack on Saturday night.. no different than a Texas city..

thomaswong.1986 says

What do you think Silicon Valley/ Santa Clara County was like back in the day which created the success story ? You think we were a bunch of Wine sipping Mozart listing Volvo driving fuck heads...

Like I said... there are lots and lots of places like that where you can move to. The area I grew up in was/ and STILL is exactly like that. It might as well be the 1930's there except people have flatscreen TVs and "The innernet". So again- WHY not move to somrwhere that more closely aligns with your idea of paradise?

edvard2 says

Like I said... there are lots and lots of places like that where you can move to.

you need not be concerned about me.. what are you afraid of ? only the truth displacing the idiotic liberal narrative..

edvard2 says

What does that have to do with anything? Explain. For example, if you flip open the hood of any new car or truck made today, regardless of manufacture, that vehicle will have parts in it made in the US, China, Japan, Mexico, Korea, Germany, and who knows where else. Just because those parts are not ALL domestically produced anymore doesn't mean the companies that make the cars are going out of business.

there is no reason the same parts cannot be made in the USA. Why buy inferior made foreign parts when we can do a better job be it Autos or Tech equipment ? If your unable to see a vision or execute to make it happen, whats the point of calling yourself a entrepreneur claiming a Liberal policy would be better given all the failures of the past..

Thats the difference between the two.. one wants to create opportunity and growth
for all who want to participate while the other is a pacifist and defeatist leaving only govt run entitlement society.

No, actually I'm not really concerned about the point you were trying to make because to me it makes no sense. I also don't really care that much about what the situation is with liberals because frankly, the Bay Area is pretty liberal and that's not going to change. Even if it did- so what.

As far as my previous comments, Seriously. Every time I go visit my folks, it might as well be a different country or planet. It is the total, stark-opposite of the Bay Area. The overwhelming majority of the population votes Republican- no matter who's running. It seems that it is generally accepted that "Of course- EVERYONE votes Republican." Its sort of like the Bay Area, except its conservative and can be ALWAYS counted on to be as such.

I was there last year and I saw maybe a total of one or two Obama stickers. The rest were all-Romney. Lots and lots and lots of "Don't tread on me" bumper stickers. Lots and lots of bumper stickers that heavily leaned right.

Like I said- if there are those who simply can't stand liberal areas, well there are parts of the country that are very, very conservative where one who might lean right would never-ever have to worry about anyone ever disagreeing with them and be assured that each and every election would result in the vast majority giving their vote to whoever the GOP candidate might be. It would be an absolute environment of total political predictability.

That isn't to say the entire area would be conservative. liberals can still be found in larger numbers in the cities. But seeing as how the cities in my home state were real small and most of the state was rural, well so much more the means to always be comfortably within a conservative area.

Oh- about costs. My parent's home is worth less than half of a 1 bedroom condo in a not so great part of San Jose.

thomaswong.1986 says

there is no reason the same parts cannot be made in the USA. Why buy inferior made foreign parts when we can do a better job be it Autos or Tech equipment ? If your unable to see a vision or execute to make it happen, whats the point of calling yourself a entrepreneur claiming a Liberal policy would be better given all the failures of the pa

Because in many cases making a particular part in the US doesn't make financial sense. Just because a part if foreign doesn't mean its inferior. Case in point: Toyota, Honda, and Nissan are all near the top of the overall quality and reliability charts. In fact, we've always imported some number of foreign-sourced components for manufactured goods as long as we've been a country.

But for example, you might have- say- a component that is made in Japan. That part might be imported to the US not because we can't make it. but perhaps because at the time a newer and more efficient factory happened to exist in Japan and so the costs were lower. Likewise we actually make quite a few parts for Japanese and European automakers because we might have better tooling and logistics for one plant in the US rather than a similar one overseas.

What's clear is that US automakers are doing very well and in the end its about the finished product. Ironically the most American cars you can buy are all Japanese brands, with the highest percentage of domestically produced content than any other make.

edvard2 says

Like I said- if there are those who simply can't stand liberal areas, well there are parts of the country that are very, very conservative where one who might lean right would never-ever have to worry about anyone ever disagreeing with them and be assured that each and every election would result in the vast majority giving their vote to whoever the GOP candidate might be. It would be an absolute environment of total political predictability.

In the SFBA ... look at SF and Oakland.. huge cities with skilled people large population been around for 100s of years.. what have they done over the past 50 years but decline economically.

on the other hand, drive 40-50 miles south to Santa Clara.. the opposite is true.. Economic boom from 1960s to 2000...

Since year 2000 with greater anti business climate the South Bay is also facing economic challenges due to Govt polices and high costs.

you been brainwashed into thinking somehow Conservative economic policies dont work and somehow are less progressive not benefiting society as a whole.. History shows otherwise.