• The forum will be going down at about 7:30 AM CST Oct 16 for maintenance. We should be down less than 1 hour.

  • This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Clear Differences

.
All the kids in the town I grew up in, understood that there were "good neighborhoods" and there were "bad neighborhoods". I expect that's true for nearly all Americans, of all colors, no matter what city or town they grew up in. When I was a kid back in the early 70's, that was important information that we all had to know, because back in those days there were no video games, no computers and no internet, so we spent nearly all of our free time playing outside. We rode bikes everywhere, hiked in the woods, and spent time in the local parks playing ball and swinging on the monkey bars. So for safety reasons, it was necessary for parents to not only make sure we knew where those bad areas were, but to also establish strict parameters of where we could and could not go, in order to prevent us from straying into those potentially dangerous areas.


That got me to thinking about what actually constituted a bad neighborhood back then?


Well, a bad neighborhood is one that's usually not taken care of very well, and has lots of broken glass and garbage on the streets. It's an area with a higher crime rate, where illegal activity and negative influences such as drug dealing, drug use and prostitution are done out in the open. Most importantly, at least as far as parents are concerned, it's an area that poses a much greater safety risk to kids, especially the kids who are culturally different or don't live there. Parents know that if kids wander into those neighborhoods, it significantly increases the chances they would become victims of violence or theft. In fact the police even feel more threatened in those neighborhoods, which unfortunately contributes to a higher percentage of scuffles and confrontations between the residents of those communities and local police, then you would see in other neighborhoods.


What I have gathered through personal observation, is when residents were violent, involved in illegal activity, part of gangs, participated in the destruction of the area, etc... most law abiding residents just accept that "that's the way it is", do nothing about it, and simply minded their own business. What's so ironic, is that it's those people, the ones who's inactions offer silent approval to those destroying their neighborhoods, are the very same people that will fly off the handle and read the riot act to anyone who dares to paint their community a "bad neighborhood", by pointing out the seedy activity taking place... the activity they choose to ignore.

Does that mean that everyone who lives in that neighborhood is violent, involved in street gangs and drugs? Not at all.


Does that mean all of them break windows, throw trash on the streets and don't give a damn about taking care of where they live? No.


Does it mean none of these elements exist in a so called "good neighborhoods?" Of course not.



We all know those elements exist in every neighborhood, no mater what town or city you're talking about. So while it's true that the good people far out number the bad in both neighborhoods, that doesn't change the fact that one has less crime, and is a safer and better environment for kids... while the other has more criminal activity, poses a much greater safety risk to kids and exposes them to a lot more negative elements.


Then there's a good neighborhood. the most significant difference I see, other than appearances (cleanliness and upkeep) is that the residents in a good neighborhood get involved and take pride in their community. They do what ever is necessary to expel the bad elements, and they don't tolerate violent behavior or illegal activity taking place on their streets. For example, if they see a crime being committed, or maybe something suspicious going on, or even something that just doesn't look right, they get involved. They will check out what's going on themselves, maybe express their concerns to the people in question, or they pick up the phone and call the police department.


There are many people out there that think it's offensive to label certain communities as good neighborhoods or bad neighborhoods, and believe that people should focus on the vast amount of things communities and the people who live in them have in common. Of course nearly all of those people are the ones who either live in, or come from, one of those "bad" neighborhoods. They want everyone to forget the obvious, and ignore the clear differences.

*

I just has a crazy idea... I wonder if it would work... If I just replace certain words with others... Hmmmm, lets see...


Well, an OWS protest site is one that's usually not taken care of very well, and has lots of broken glass and garbage on the streets. It's a protest with a higher crime rate, where illegal activity and negative influences such as drug dealing, drug use and prostitution are done out in the open. Most importantly, at least as far as conservatives are concerned, it's a protest that poses a much greater safety risk to people, especially the people who are politically different and don't live there. Americans know that if a person wanders into those OWS protests, it significantly increased the chances they would become victims of violence or theft. In fact the police even feel more threatened at those protests, which unfortunately contributes to a higher percentage of scuffles and confrontations between the protesters at OWS and local police, then you would see at a Tea Party protests.


What I have gathered through personal observation, is when protesters were violent, involved in illegal activity, part of gangs, participated in the destruction of the area, etc... most law abiding protesters just accept that "that's the way it is", do nothing about it, and simply minded their own business. What's so ironic, is that it's those protesters, the ones who's inactions offer silent approval to protesters destroying their OWS event, are the very same liberals that will fly off the handle and read the riot act to anyone who dares to paint OWS a "bad protest", by pointing out the seedy activity taking place... the activity they choose to ignore.

Does that mean that everyone who protests at OWS is violent, involved in street gangs and drugs? Not at all.


Does that mean all OWS protesters break windows, throw trash on the streets and don't give a damn about taking care of the protest area? No.


Does it mean none of these elements exist in a "Tea Party protest?" Of course not.



We all know those elements exist in every protest movement, no mater what town or city they protest in. So while it's true that the good people far out number the bad in both protest movements, that doesn't change the fact that the Tea Party has less crime, and is a safer and better environment for people... while OWS has more criminal activity, poses a much greater safety risk to people and exposes the public to a lot more negative elements.


Then there's a Tea Party protest. the most significant difference I see, other than appearances (cleanliness and upkeep) is that the protesters in a Tea Party event get involved and take pride in America. Tea Party people do what ever is necessary to expel the bad elements, and they don't tolerate violent behavior or illegal activity taking place at their events. For example, if protesters see a crime being committed, or maybe something suspicious going on, or even something that just doesn't look right, they get involved. Tea Party protesters will check out what's going on themselves, maybe express their concerns to the people in question, or they pick up the phone and call the police department.


There are many liberals out there that think it's offensive to label protest organizations as good protest movements or bad protest movements, and believe that everyone should focus on the vast amount of things OWS events and the protesters who live at them have in common with the Tea Party. Of course nearly all of those liberals are the protesters who either live at, or protested at, one of those "OWS" protest sites. OWS protesters want everyone to forget the obvious, and ignore the clear differences.

*

Well what do you know...

Grim17
1/19/2012
 
Top Bottom